Wednesday, September 23, 2009

The LEED conspiracy

From the NY Post:

The USGBC claims LEED buildings are 25 percent to 30 percent more energy efficient, a figure based on a 2007 study it commissioned from the New Buildings Institute. But Gifford figured out that USGBC fudged the study by comparing the median energy usage of a LEED sample to the mean (or average) usage of non-LEED buildings. By taking the mean value of both distributions, he found the same data indicated that LEED projects use 29 percent more energy than non-LEED buildings.

No one knows for sure why, but clearly, the group's energy-modeling tools and arcane point system fail to predict how real-life mechanical systems function and tenants behave. For example, Gifford's report showed a picture of the Hearst Tower on 57th Street -- billed as New York's first green skyscraper -- with its lights blazing at night.

Follow-up reviews of the study have confirmed the inaccuracy of the USGBC's claims. "There is no justification for USGBC claims that LEED Certified commercial buildings are using significantly less electricity or have significantly lower greenhouse-gas emission associated with their operations than do conventional buildings," wrote Oberlin College researcher John Scofield in a paper last month.

So why is LEED so popular? Well, it lets politicians cloak themselves in the garb of environmental activism without upsetting real-estate interests. Thus, when city and state lawmakers imposed their sweeping regulations here in New York, they never bothered to check LEED's claims.

For developers, LEED is a source of tax credits, a potent marketing tool and protection from environmental criticism. It has given rise to a whole new industry of "accredited" consultants -- a constituency that's grown to over 100,000 who get paid to advise developers on how to get their project certified and to assess buildings.

And the program has been good for the "nonprofit" USGBC, which reported a 300 percent growth in revenue from 2005 to 2007. The group rakes in tens of millions of dollars each year from examination and conference fees, member dues and speaking engagements. Many of the same people who developed the USGBC rules make money as private LEED consultants, members say.

But there's a hefty cost here. While estimates vary, developers and officials say LEED often adds 5 percent or more to project costs -- an expense that's passed on to the tenant or (in the case of public works) to the taxpayer.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thats the biggest load of bullshit I have ever read. Apparently the Queenscrapper does not care for accuracy or truth to the articles he posts on this blog.

Anonymous said...

Previous comment written by someone who benefits financially from LEED crapola.

Queens Crapper said...

1) It's an excerpt from a column, not an article.

2) What's inaccurate about it?

Anonymous said...

First of all the "NY Post" is not known for publishing the truth.

LEED certified buildings not only pertain to reducing energy usage but they also pertain to using recycled materials, recycling water and many, many other things that basically have to do with one common theme - eliminating waste.

Is the LEED syste, perfect - not at all but considering what the options are it is steller. If you have any interest in building at all you should read up on what it takes to make a building LEED certified - you would be impressed.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Previous comment written by someone who benefits financially from LEED crapola.

Previous comment written by someone who is a blithering idiot.

Anonymous said...

"Previous comment written by someone who benefits financially from LEED crapola."

So anyone that disagrees benefits from LEED?

Everyone benefits from more efficient buildings and lower energy consumption. Office buildings currently account for 20% of all energy consumption and carbon output. This article was put out by Real Estate Owners who fear that the city and state will soon pass mandates requiring all buildings to be more efficient, or LEED certified. Its common sense. Yes it will cost extra money now....but in the future will save money and resources. Owners obviously don't want to pay for upgrades since most of the current costs to run a building as was stated, are passed onto the tenants.

Anonymous said...

"This article was put out by Real Estate Owners"

This article was written by Jacob Gershman, a columnist for the NY Sun and NY Magazine before the NY Post. And the study in question was commissioned and published by the US Green Building Council which found that certified buildings often use more energy. This needs to be further investigated before we make a huge mistake.

Anonymous said...

More "green" Kool-Aid drinkers out there...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
More "green" Kool-Aid drinkers out there...


Yeah, and let me guess - "global warming is actually a cyclical normal event" right?

Anonymous said...

Jacob Gershman, a columnist for the NY Sun and NY Magazine before the NY Post.

Jacob Gershman is extremely conservative and partisan.He is not known for being very truthful.

Anonymous said...

The study in question was commissioned and published by the US Green Building Council (yes, it's their own study) which found that certified buildings often use more energy. This needs to be further investigated before we make a huge mistake and waste billions of dollars.

Anonymous said...

LEED equals common sense. I am a LEED Green Associate and can tell you it’s a cash cow that only stupid builders need to know. Any engineer can design an efficient building much better than any stupid LEED input. I only took it because my work wanted me to have it and paid for it. What a joke. Go away LEED and keep your so called non-profit crap in the states.