WSJ report: Is it too easy being green?
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 10.20.05
The Wall Street Journal continues to write much that interests treehugger. The editorial page continues to be written by troglodytes, yesterday even editorializing against spotted owls, but they also published what we think will be a controversial article about how big business and big architects are possibly manipulating the LEED points system by investing in things that give the most points for the smallest investment. Example- you get one point each for putting in a 50 buck bike rack and metal floor grates to reduce particulates, but only two points for increasing the efficiency of the heating or cooling system by 10%, which can cost tens of thousands of dollars. The much-heralded Goldman Sachs "coke can" scraped in as a green building with the minimum 27 points yet "does little to cut energy use or reduce pollution" and got most of its LEED points for building on a brownfield site. c'mon guys, every urban site is brownfield. Read more at ::Wall Street Journal via ::Post Gazette
What what WHAT? Corporations gaming tax laws for maximum advantage? Stop the presses!
sorry, but it ain't true. doing a brownfield site is worth one single LEED point. that's it.
LA: I apologise if I am incorrect in this; the WSJ had a table and showed 8 points for this.
what lee said. goldman sachs is a financial-services company. playing the numbers is their bread & butter. the proper answer to this is not to criticize the players, but to repair the rules of the game.