Boop the Bottle! Don't Annoy the Baby!
All Babies Love Their Bottles
Donate monthly and end FReepathons!
Sponsors will donate $10
For each new monthly sign-up
Posted on 01/17/2012 10:51:59 AM PST by Pan_Yan
As a result of the December 31 presidential signing of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA; H.R. 1540), the Department of Defense, or DOD, is prohibited from funding any LEED Platinum or Gold certification of new buildings for the current fiscal year, unless it submits notification of intent 30 days before the money is allocated.
The only exception to the rule is if LEED Gold or Platinum certifications don’t involve additional expense.
Under the same legislation, the DOD is required to submit a report to Congress (Sec. 2830) no later than June 30 on energy efficiency and sustainability standards used by the Department. This analysis is to be conducted with equal consideration for ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers) building requirements (189.1-2011, and 90.1-2010), ANSI (American National Standards Institute) accredited standards, and LEED certification.
LEED rates in four categories: Certified, Silver, Gold and Platinum -- Platinum being the highest with a possible 100 points (110 for new construction). LEED is a highly sought-after building energy efficiency and sustainability standard among corporations, notably Proctor & Gamble. It is also esteemed by some U.S. sports teams.
LEED, or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, is a building standard created and enforced by the U.S. Green Building Council, or USGBC, a nonprofit vested in sustainable building and environmentally friendly land and energy use.
The design principles used by the certification measure site sustainability and feasibility, water use, energy use, sustainable materials use, indoor air quality, and innovation in design, and encourage both awareness of and education regarding “green” building initiatives.
The 2012 directive is, according to many, the result of a dispute in 2010 between LEED advocates and opponents, the latter arguing that the LEED system favors using steel and concrete over wood, and does not even credit the sustainable use of domestic woods certified by the Forest Stewardship Council in framing and construction, but only in furniture.
In fact, the NDAA goes well beyond putting LEED in the backseat. It demands that the DOD prove the cost benefits of all its standards for determining energy efficiency either in new buildings or in retrofits, and may eventually result in the scrapping of at least two (LEED and ASHRAE 2010) and possibly three standards in favor of a hybrid standard which would replace the USGBC’s system.
Congress is not the first entity to call into question the cost-effectiveness of LEED standards, which add (sometimes considerably) to the final amount for new buildings and building retrofits.
This can happen either through misunderstanding or miscommunication about standards and implementation, leading to expensive construction delays or repairs, or through sourcing of sometimes inordinately expensive building materials needed to meet said standards. Not to mention the cost of LEED-savvy architects, engineers, construction superintendents, consultants, and certification experts.
A classic example would be the ImaginOn building in Charlotte, North Carolina, the city’s first “green” building, which ended up using twice as much energy as envisioned based on the building standards applied.
But the most notable incident is undoubtedly Henry Gifford’s lawsuit against USGBC, which charged the rating system was a form of false advertising since it did not reliably increase energy efficiency. The lawsuit was dismissed, but highlights an underlying problem; there may be too many systems by which to measure building energy efficiency and sustainability.
Thus, in spite of Senator Henry Wicker’s (R-Miss.) push to include domestic lumber in energy efficiency certification ratings – which may account in part for the new Congressional guidelines – it may in fact turn out that carbon-sequestering concrete and steel are actually more efficient in that respect.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy, arguing that the NDAA does not prohibit its using LEED standards to meet simple Certification, has said it will continue using USGBC guidelines and seeking certification. The additional comment, that certification at the Gold or Platinum level does not cost more, may be questionable.
In my opinion LEED is a scam where companies pay thousands or tens of thousands of dollars to a "non profit" for the priviledge of putting their patented logos on websites and literature. The USGBC and ASHRAE have both bought fully into global warming, carbon neutrality and 'sustainability'. I think ASHRAE can be saved (I hope so, I'm a mamber) but USGBC has a business model built on this scam.
Green energy ping.
Someone in Congress is pushing back, even if it’s just a little.
Heretic! Blasphemer!
You’ll be reported to Saint Albert for re-education.
Psst. Youre correct about usgbc.
I agree, I hate it. I think it’s just like wearing pink to “support” breast cancer research...just giving a paton the back to all the other do nothing posers.
I’m not a complete heretic, I do the Energy Star paperwork every year. But of course the only cost to that is the engineer’s certification and the plaque. LEEDs wants to see your books before they decide what to charge you.
Geez,...there is no end to this Global warming scam and all the associated costs.
You are correct that LEED is a scam.
For example, you get LEED points (toward certification) if you use pre-finished wood or faux-wood flooring.
This is because Armstrong makes pre-finished flooring and did not want to lose business if real wood floors were given higher preference.
They want to see financial info???
As a national security matter, for the military to be as “energy efficient” as possible, can be a positive thing, provided:
(a) that such “efficiency” is based on the cost of the military’s energy needs, more than any other “efficiency” and without consideration for any politically-correct interpretation of what is “the right” energy source,
and (b) as long as such “efficiency” is not trumped by the military’s mission requirements themselves.
There is only one military purpose in “going ‘Green’” - can the military do 100% of it’s mission requirments, while incorporating new energy technologies that will save both long and short-term energy costs and without jeaprodizing or even short-changing, its mission in any way.
Any thing else is about politics, not energy or its cost.
Thanks Ernest.
ASHRAE was a very good engineering society that has been hijacked by the leftist environmental bandwagon. As you say, I hope they can be saved.
Even ASME has shown signs of believing in the global warming crap.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
