Is the USGBC peddling in greenwash?

The charge, that LEED certified buildings are not, in fact, energy efficient at all, was raised by Henry Gifford, owner of Gifford Fuel Saving. He is a man who has decades of hands on experience (particularly with boilers) managing, owning, renovating and residential properties and buildings in New York City. Mr. Gifford has apparently spent his entire career focusing on what saves energy, while earning money by saving people money on fuel.

In March 2008, Mr. Gifford blew the whistle on what he perceives as a smoke and mirrors approach to sustainability by the USGBC, the creators of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design green building rating system, better known as "LEED" stemming from a 2007 report commissioned by the organization to actually measure the energy performance of the buildings they are certifying as "green". Central to Mr. Gifford's position is the USGBC's apples to oranges approach of comparing the median energy performance of one group of buildings to the mean performance of another.

Another article by Joseph Lstiburek (which is so humorous, it could be a story transcript for the "Daily Show"), in the journal of ASHRAE (the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers), shames architects and the engineers that support them for chasing "points" for superfluous "green" motives that have nothing whatsoever to do with saving energy once in place. Indeed, Mr. Lstiburek asserts, some efforts may absorb more energy to get them there in the first place, having the opposite effect. Mr. Lstiburek praises Mr. Gifford's work while going further to shame the USGBC's "form over substance" practice of allowing building owners to claim LEED ratings before their buildings are even complete.

If one were debating the meaning of "Greenwash", I'm pretty sure labeling a building green (before it ever earns the right to do so) would qualify. Marketers, brokers, owners, developers, etc... all milk the sh*t out of anticipated LEED ratings.

Mr. Gifford points out that the USGBC study (completed by the New Buildings Institute ("NBI"))suffered from a few big problems, including that it only obtained data from 22 percent of the LEED-certified buildings in the country, most of which were built in the last decade or two, and then compared it to a national database (CBECS) that includes buildings dating from the early part of the 20th century.

Using science to measure actual performance is certainly the right approach. After all, how much less satisfying to drive would a Prius be without that cool onboard flat panel thingy telling you, in real time, what is happening with your fuel efficiency? There are tons of engineers who are LEED APs as well as ardent supporters of the USGBC, who should do more to publicly address Mr. Lstiburek's and Mr. Gifford's points. As a member and supporter of the USGBC, I don't think I've gotten any email from them saying "Hey, we want to thank Mr. Gifford for his allegations and we'd like to address his points one by one..."

The USGBC shouldn't be complacent. Ignoring or deflecting such claims could lead to the downfall of LEED.

If commercial building owners and investors will continue to support LEED they've got to know they are really more efficient than non LEED buildings. Just like other industries, competition is intense and will only increase as green building becomes more legislated. As such, the LEED alternatives that exist in the marketplace, such as Green Globes and Energy Star, need to take note of how the USGBC responds to allegations such as these.