“LEED Standards Insufficient to Protect Human Health,” Finds New Report

A new report released last week concludes, “[LEED] ‘platinum,’ ‘gold,’ and ‘silver’ status conveys the false impression of a healthy and safe building environment, even when well-recognized hazardous chemicals exist in building products,” and, “LEED standards are insufficient to protect human health.”

The report, entitled “LEED Certification: Where Energy Efficiency Collides With Human Health,” was published by Environment and Human Health, Inc. (EHHI), a non-profit organization composed of doctors, public health professionals and policy experts who specialize in research that examines environmental threats to human health. According to the lead author, John Wargo, Ph.D., Professor of Risk Analysis and Environmental Policy at Yale University, “Even the Council’s most prestigious Platinum award does little to ensure that hazardous chemicals are kept out of the certified buildings.”

Dr. Philip Landrigan, Chairman, Department of Preventive Medicine, at Mt. Sinai School of Medicine in New York, reviewed the report and called it “a lucid, well reasoned and balanced critique of the LEED certification process … on the basis of carefully assembled scientific data.” Dr. Mark Cullen, Chief of Internal Medicine at Stanford University Medical School, also reviewed the report and noted “the potential for green building technologies – even while they bring important energy benefits – to jeopardize the indoor air we breathe, the water we drink and the overall safety of our habitats,” adding, “This is a timely lesson from a very sage group.”

My colleagues in the Pharos Project have spent a good deal of time documenting the “collision between energy efficiency and human health” that is at the heart of the new report. These include mercury and other heavy metals in fly ash and other “coal combustion residuals” that reduce carbon footprints by displacing energy intensive ingredients in building products; carcinogens and endocrine disruptors in foam board; explosive chemicals that have killed applicators of sprayed polyurethane insulation; and formaldehyde emissions from some batt insulation products. But as both our Pharos research and the Wargo report make clear, most “well recognized” chemical threats from building products provide no energy efficiency benefits, and many could be avoided in green buildings.

LEED itself has demonstrated a greater potential to increase the use of healthier building materials, and transform markets in the process, than the Wargo report suggests. A decade ago, the LEED rating system began awarding a credit for use of composite wood products with no added urea formaldehyde, setting a high standard and sending a clear signal to the market. The credit helped catalyze market demand for a range of formaldehyde-free products, which led to an April 2007 decision by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopting the nation’s most stringent regulations on formaldehyde emissions from particleboard and other composite wood products.

That, however, is one of the last times the USGBC took a leadership position to address “well-recognized” chemical threats from building materials, and its record since then leaves it vulnerable to the criticisms in the Wargo report. In March 2007, for example, despite a conclusion by a USGBC Technical Science Advisory Panel that the available data put PVC “consistently among the worst materials for human health impacts,” the USGBC leadership rejected proposed credits that would have reduced the use of PVC products (also known as vinyl), and the membership was denied an opportunity to vote on them. That decision, writes Wargo, “demonstrates the influence industry has over the LEED decision-making process and, ultimately, the definition of ‘green building.’”1

Wargo’s report coincidently comes just one week after health care industry leaders vigorously objected to a pending USGBC staff proposal to remove materials credits from the draft LEED for Health Care that would address a range of chemical threats identified by Wargo – including the phthalates in flexible PVC, halogenated flame retardants and the perfluorocarbons in stain retardants. These credits would be consigned to an experimental Pilot Credit Library Program that still languishes “in development” a year and a half after it was supposedly launched. Again, the membership would not have the opportunity to vote on the original proposal.2

The Wargo report concludes with practical recommendations for reforming the LEED credit structure to be more protective of health. These should be embraced as LEED materials credits are revised. But for now, the record shows, the USGBC is not doing nearly enough with the tools at its disposal, in particular the visible support of its voting membership for healthier building standards.

Footnotes

[1] See, “LEED Certification: Where Energy Efficiency Collides With Human Health.” , p.34

[2] The Healthy Building Network advocated for proposed LEED credits that would have reduced PVC use in green buildings, and filed comments in opposition to proposal to transfer credits from LEED for Health Care to the Pilot Credit Library. HBN’s Policy Director Tom Lent is a member of the LEED for Health Care Steering Committee. 

Since 2002, the Healthy Building Network’s HBNews has provided green building professionals with timely, reliable information and perspective on market and political trends that are defining the green building movement. Visit our website and sign up to receive HBNews via e-mail.

HBN7230

Posted via web from 3BL Media, CSR News, and Emily

Branding Technology as a Sustainability Solution

Can technology save the world?

Most of the biggest brands think they can. 

Yet, as small upstarts start getting real traction with innovation, they are faced with the challenge of building strong brands as big players change the products, services and business models they offer to the marketplace.

As a center of innovation, Silicon Valley is an ideal place to gather and review its own technological prowess in addressing climate change, resource depletion, soaring energy needs, and the integration of policy and business in deploying massive scale solutions.

I recently attended GreenNet2010, produced by GigaOM, a one-day conference that showcased technology solutions aimed at responding to the social and ecological challenges facing our world.  From energy production and management companies to new transportation solutions, alongside close looks at the smart grid and IT as a solution provider, over 500 attendees heard from established brands and early stage innovators.

What struck me is the almost giddy enthusiasm for the enormous market opportunities available to the companies who most quickly and creatively address climate change, transportation issues, grid complexities, energy creation and management.  Venture capitalists, engineers, public utilities, and technologists are enthused and optimistic about their ability to solve these intractable problems and make money in the process.

Imagine a panel with Better Place, Ford, OnStar, Nissan, and PG&E al discussing how they are both individually and collectively addressing the need to radically transform our transportation industry to reduce its 30% contribution to GHG. “We are in a unique era where we’ve never had this many stakeholders trying to affect this big of a change, in this small period of time,” said Saul Zambrano Director, Integrated Demand-side Management Core Products, Pacific Gas and Electric Company.  To a man (and they were all men), they communicated their personal commitment and satisfaction in participating in the transformation. 

Their language of goodness was a welcome dimension in the overall discussion of trillion dollar market opportunities.

Don’t get me wrong; I am a capitalist with the best of them.

However, as those on the car panel demonstrated, we all need to discuss, make space for, and value these other attributes.  Purpose and meaning, according to Dan Pink, are the very things that motivate us.  This is where the playing field levels a bit for large and small businesses.

Big brands like Ford and PG&E can share the world stage with upstarts like Lit Motors (also at the conference but not on stage – my opening point exactly) because what they share is an intention – to leverage business acumen and technological prowess to meet environmental and social challenges.

It will be interesting to watch the big players compete with the small innovators.  Pitting imagination and cleverness that is not hemmed in by existing infrastructure and assumptions against the ability to scale and dominate.  I think it’s going to be a matter of both/and.  It will take small players and large organizations to create solutions and deploy them broadly and quickly. 

At the heart of both approaches is, frankly, the heart.  As we learn more about the cost of natural resource depletion, the power to galvanize people through campaigns like presenter 350.org, and hear from panelist like Bill Gross CEO of Idealab who links his solar efforts back to childhood passion and shop tinkering, we will be engaged because our hearts are engaged.  Brands both small and large that trust and have the courage to communicate their interior purpose will be the players who lead the technology transformation and reap its benefits.

Posted via web from 3BL Media, CSR News, and Emily

Becoming Greener with Less Water

With oil, natural gas, and energy receiving most of the popular press, the often forgotten resource that presents the greatest challenge to local communities is the availability of fresh water.  Unlike energy constraints, water can not be economically brought in from neighboring areas in tankers, on trucks, or even in transmission pipelines.  With all the advances in technology, communities still rely on the access and availability of a local water  supply.

To further illustrate this concept, let us take a look at the city of Las Vegas, NV, which sits in a remote desert region of the southwestern United States.  Despite its isolated location and somewhat harsh environment, the city currently flourishes as one of the fastest growing cities in the county.  This is made possible by a massive influx of energy from the far reaches of the surrounding region and resources from all over the country.  However, the community would fail to survive without the abundance of locally available water.

Because water supply and demand are so tightly linked at a local level, communities are becoming increasingly aware of their water supply and actively managing demand.  In the McKinsey report, Charting Our Water Future, this gap is discussed in terms of community risk and economic trade-offs.

Addressing this at a business level, as sustainability consultants, we encourage our clients to be actively aware of their consumption and water disposal.  With the interdependencies of energy and water and the potential limitations of local supply, water is becoming an unknown future cost and a real business risk.  We advise clients to include water management as a sustainability concept in an overall business sustainability program.  Some ideas include:

•    Create a water management strategy and efficiency policy
•    Install water efficient equipment and fixtures
•    Utilize greywater recycling where possible
•    Promote water conservation within the supply chain

Within Taiga Company, there are tools and resources available to raise your eco awareness and to implement solutions that meet unique business needs. 

Posted via web from 3BL Media, CSR News, and Emily