whether or not the article proves that global warming is a scam, why does the world need to be on the brink of destruction in order to justify the environmentally responsible design? is their really anything wrong with architecture that is sensitive to energy and environmental conservation?

I guess its kinda like if someone said we'll run out of oil in 25 years, so everyone starts making fuel efficient cars, and then we find out we aren't going to run out of oil. Does that make creating fuel efficient cars a scam? I think people like using less (thus paying for less) oil, and the same with things like electricity. Wouldn't you like to save money on your homes heating/cooling cost, etc?

I'm an architecture student, which means the amount of scientific knowledge I have can fit into this paper bag, however isn't it usually prudent to err on the side of caution, anyway?

It is if LEED is base on the idea of designing a building base on the science of it, such as organic architecture practice in Europe for ages. If you have ever read LEED and understand the process and how the organization have been operated, you will know that is a scam.

They have constantly finding way to charge people to pay them fee and now they want to make it even harder for people to get it. Current LEED compare to the first one is night and day and the method to even take a LEED exam doesn't make much sense. The government have a LEED compatible program in place for quite a while call SPiRit. And what is with all these type of LEED you can get.

LEED is laughed at by many people who have been practicing responsible architecture since the beginning. Most European architect who look at LEED couldn't believe it, an engineer from ARUP once looked at it and said "are you kidding me, these is what you called green architecture!"

LEED is just a glorified shopping list developed by some business people to market things, and what shocks me is as an architect we got sucker into it.

The world is warming up, if that didn't happen we would still be in ice age. We have little effect on the earth climate. The universe is too big for us to phuck it up. If the weather pattern doesn't fit what we predicted doesn't mean the sky is falling. It's easy to say "I told you so."

You have two different arguments here, one is that LEED is a scam, and two is that global warming is a scam.

I don't know how the exact LEED process works, I am just assuming that LEED makes some sort of profit off of giving out LEED ratings. Meaning that you can build a "green" building without LEED at all. Of course I'm sure LEED helps architects design more efficient buildings, but there's no reason you can't design an efficient building without LEED.

Also, LEED looks good on a resume, similar to AIA, or many other orginizations.

As for screwing up the world, I'm pretty sure we could do that.

"I don't know how the exact LEED process works, I am just assuming that LEED makes some sort of profit off of giving out LEED ratings. Meaning that you can build a "green" building without LEED at all. Of course I'm sure LEED helps architects design more efficient buildings, but there's no reason you can't design an efficient building without LEED."

Just look at Renzo Piano. He builds the greenest buildings yet they don't have LEED certification!

As for screwing up the world I'm also pretty sure we could do that.

This movie kind of champions the opposite of the idea that CO2 drives climate change
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs

Even if global warming is a scam, we should not stop at developing greener technologies and be more independent nation by staying away from oil. It its not right to just drop the plans of better greener future and go back to oil just because global warming is a scam.

well, you've convinced me. i'm going to go burn some tires.

Yeah, since global warming is now a scam...I have all these cans of petroleum distillates, paints, oil and household cleaners.

I was going to take them to the toxic waste dump... but I think I'll just put them in a small wooden boat in a pristine lake, cover the boat in gasoline and set it on fire.

I dont know if Id call LEED a scam....but just the american way. If theres money to be had - people are going to go for it.

I have worked on a number of LEED certified buildings and the process in which to get LEED points is definitely rediculous. For example you might think about buying Green Power points b/c it is cheaper then say putting permiable pavers in the parking lot. Id much rather have the permiable pavers and honestly its probably a better point to have....but it boils down to buying credits to have a "green" building b/c thats all you can afford after VE. And that is just silly! If I didnt have to spend the time/money filling out paperwork, hiring a LEED consultant, figuring ways to jump though the LEED hoops. I could design a much mor efficient building w/out LEED.

Personally I think LEED is bullshit and will absorbed into the IBC in a matter of a few short years.

amen

LEED doesn't guarantee sustainability, it's an aid to sustainability. Nothing in the world is going to prevent developers and architects who don't give shit from choosing cheap and expedient solutions over more expensive, ethical ones.

This is as true for LEED buildings and teams as it is for more conventional construction.

My project for this semester has photovoltaic panels on the roof...if it wasn't due on Thursday I'd replace 'em with ten gas powered generators.

I don't understand the anti-climate change attitudes beyond guessing that some folks are slobs who don't want to have to clean up after themselves, and so they deeply resent being told to clean up their act. Or maybe they truly believe the world will end tomorrow and the quicker they can bring on the apocalypse the better. I can't see any other justification for the vitriol and lies.

IF, and only IF, their is a slight chance that climate change is caused by human activity, why NOT attempt to prevent the catastrophe? Humans do lots of stuff to minimize risks already (and some are very lucrative like insurance and contracting with the ACE to build substandard flood protection). Why is minimizing the risk of climate change caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions a bad idea?

There was never a blowhard reaction to the banning of CFCs to stop the ozone hole. The risk of UV radiation never had the potential to cause the same level of catastrophe as rising oceans, ocean acidification, changed precipitation patterns (ie drought), and all the other problems we may have caused by our carbon based economy.

If you wear seatbelts and are glad to have airbags in your car, why claim that climate change is a hoax? You might as well accept that the world is 5000 years old and people lived with dinosaurs. Okay, if you do, don't you want to preserve the miracle that is creation? isn't creation care a worthy enterprise? if choice to have an abortion is the greatest political sin in our world, then failing to act on climate change is an act of premeditated abortion against future generations of our kids. Climate change doesn't care if you are a Republican, a Christian, a Libertarian, or a flying purple people eater.

It doesn't matter if burning coal and oil are the primary cause of climate change - there are so many other negative impacts (smog/acid rain/oil spills/cancer) of the carbon economy that justify acting. DO YOU REALLY WANT TO SEND 80% of our money to OPEC for gasoline?????


As to the USGBC being driven by perpetuating their brand and making some money - hey that's capitalism. You don't need to sign up and get accredited or certify that building you're designing. If LEED provides benefits for your client that justify the expense and efforts, you're free to engage. That does not make LEED a fraud. It just makes it capitalism.

does LEED go far enough pushing architects and developers towards carbon-neutral/net-zero/living buildings? NO. is it a first step? yes and it has succeeded in getting the conversation started where Malcolm Wells, Pliny Fisk, Ed Mazria, and Paolo Solari never gained traction.

LEED is helping developers to brand their property to sell higher prices... money is going to those fancy gadgets applications for luxurous apartment rather than giving the public a clear picture of how to save the world FROM HUMAN...

Technically, treekiller, USGBC operates outside of capitalism. It's a not-for-profit semi-public organization.

All they money they are "fleecing" from people they have to spend by the end of the year, invest it and so forth. In fact, USGBC is a pretty big employer of entry-level and or young graduates in the economics, planning and architecture sectors.

See, when they make loads of money... they can't give it all away as bonuses or use it for personal gain. They actually have to do stuff with it!

ummm....name one thing thats not a scam.

money drives everything...good intentions or bad.

the usgbc's operating budget last year (FY 2008) was something like $50 million.

the cost of running the LEED rating system wasn't even $10 million.

all that cash is going somewhere, and it's not to R&D...

Operating Revenue $46.4 Million
Expenses $35.5 Million

Assets from last year $10.3 Million
Assets from 2008 $10.5 Million

Total assets $41.3 Million
Total liabilities $20.4 Million
Total net assets $ 20.9 Million

Even if they were splitting all $10.5 Million evenly across their board members (30 members) as bonuses, that's only $350,000 per board member.

But they even say that their unrestricted board designated net assets (free money) is only $4.4 million.

Getting sent to Club Fed (white collar prison) over ~$146,000 dollars is totally not worth it.

orochi, average CEO salary of non profits is about $160k. i wasn't implying they were siphoning money off, but that it wasn't being effectively utilized.

the more i look at the numbers, especially when compared to other non-profits, the more of a scam it seems...
2007 revenues: $46.4 million
registration & certification: $11.2 million
education: $13.6 million
conferences: $8.4 million

2007 expenses: $35.8 million
registration & certification: $8.2 million (our of $35.8)
education: $5.6 million
conferences: $6.6 million

the USGBC only spent $100k on advocacy. to give a comparison, the chamber of commerce spends almost 1/5 of it's $150 million budget on advocacy.

the NRDC has an operating budget of about $100 million, and still manages to outspend the USGBC by 4:1 on lobbying.

the USGBC's using education as a means of raking in the dough. same with the certification process. toss in the lack of a LEED rating system with teeth, and frankly, i'm not sure how they can be taken seriously...

religion is the worlds biggest scam (and why are churches not-for-profit????), not green building practices. prayer is statistically proven to be fake and does nothing, while at least a LEED building does perform better.