Thanks, Lloyd

I read your posts consistently, and hope the diversity of experience among us Brigadiers can complement what is at Treehugger.

-Janne Flisrand

(p.s. would you consider deleting the errant 't' in my last name?)

I read treehugger daily to keep abreast of technological developments that can contribute to an overall level of sustainability for the human race. This my first time posting, though.

I consistently see your contributors bashing LEED cert structures of any significant size, presumably favoring smaller buildings. I also do not see support for this overwhelming viewpoint in any article.

I would like to take this as an opportunity to question Treehugger in it's motives. What is the desired result of your environmentalism? I assume world adoption of sustainability or something along those lines to be your most likely response. To that end, I see a contradiction lingering in the dogma. Since it's inception, environmentalism and indeed, most "liberal" causes have been sort of lumped together in the popular mind. The trouble is that environmentalism is attached by this mechanism to ideas that will make it impractical for the general population. This relegates it to a fringe movement. No matter how en vogue it is at the moment, environmentalism will never catch on when associated with this anti-wealth, anti-development, approaching socialism slant that I see attached to it.

What does this mean? SUVs, big houses, opulent and excessive construction... these things are not inherently bad. They are a natural product of our society, and we cannot change "society". We can work to make it sustainable. I guess that I would rather see a LEED cert McMansion than an uncertified one. The stance put forth by many of your contributors that they would rather not see a McMansion at all, but a tiny cottage, is just impractical and counter-productive.

For sustainable technology to exist and flourish, people need to not have to give up anything to embrace it. More than that, it should make more economical sense that it's antiquated alternative. Only then will the world change, friends. You hate to hear it, but money, not feelings is the solution to environmental degredation.

I more and less share Josh's preocupation with the "specifics" of Treehugger's worldview and would like to see a "dogma" list of sorts if there's any. Manifesto?
On the other hand, I think that a change in society is needed, required, mandatory if we are really into not making the planet a dumpster. It's not a feeling, but a firm belief that our society and its productive mechanisms must change if we are to offer our children a better, cleaner, saner future.
Sustainability must mean more than feeding a monster who degrades our life's quality.
So I cant accept this "cannot change society" dogma, we must evolve or die.

Having just earned LEED accreditation over the past weekend, my two cents: The USGBC itself knows that its system is not perfect and continually seeks feedback to improve it. It started out focusing on one type of construction and has now grown to involve more building types and uses. Is it perfect? No, not by a long shot.

The intent is great, it is does help you learn more from a technical standpoint how to incorporate 'green' measures into your design. To have a project certified you do need to earn points but a building can not earn the final certification without meeting a minimum number of prerequisites which include IAQ, Energy Standards, etc. Not just buying a bike rack will get you there.

Ultimately, in the design and architecture industry it is up to the client to decide what their sustainable goals are. Until more people adopt a sustainable outlook - we do what we can.

With respect, I have to disagree with mr Hartung's take on this article, and perhaps the environmental movement as a whole.

To begin with, saying that money, not feelings, is the solution to environmental degradation misses much of the history, and the present state, of the environmental movement. It was, and continues to be, driven by people motivated by their feelings and concerns, often running contrary to what convenience or money would dictate. To think of this, the most basic motivation for many environmentalists, as somehow anachronistic, misses the whole point.

The challenge is not to make environmental solutions the bargain bin choice for industry, but to convince people of the "financial" and social costs of things like species extinction, poisoned air, widespread food system failures and wars over water, and then to find ways to adopt technological, as well as political and personal, solutions to head off these crises.

The motivation for many companies to adopt responsible practices is the premium they can receive in the market, which can be substantial. Their reasoning is not the same as the people who demand those practices. I've worked in the organics trade for many years, and I know that some certified growers, often large industrial scale holdings, provide as little benefit over conventional growers as possible while retaining their certification. The difference between their product, and that produced by a truly conscientious grower, can be stark.

Institutions like LEED often become a standard unit of measurement for many builders, homeowners, and government agencies. By default, we end up depending on the rigor of their processes when making decisions. The same skepticism which leads a movement to challenge business-as-usual practices in the first place is required to prevent these bodies from becoming rubber stamps for industry.

To fail to publish criticisms and challenges to organizations like LEED would be to fail at a basic task of environmental journalism. Believe it or not, there are some people who WOULD like to capitalize on the growing green market without providing real value. The only thing that will keep them honest is our continued scrutiny of the agencies who guard the gates, so to speak. Without that watchfulness, we will surely see lots of "green" products at unbelievably low prices, but they will be little more than tricked out twinkies and SUV's with big batteries. If a McMansion is certified by LEED, I want it to mean something, and if LEED certification precludes building such a house, then someone wanting a LEED certified house will probably not build a McMansion. Fair enough.

All the above article does is point out some room for builders and suppliers to "fluff" up the environmental benefits of their projects resulting from point equivalence and such. Not exactly a brush suitable for painting the environmental movement as an anti-wealth socialist conspiracy. Just good ol' fashion, incredulous journalism. Thanks for posting it, treehugger.

As a builder who is currently constructing the Southeasts first 2 LEED Platinum homes, I've got to say LEED is a ridiculous expensive exercise when it comes to the residential sector. The houses we had originally designed were arguably much greener than the ones we are now building...and the counter intuitive LEED checklist can be thanked I could lament over the details, but lets just say the criticism aimed at LEED definitely has it's merits when it comes to the real world economics and construction of these projects. The only reason I'm sticking with it is simply for the press. It wouldn't be possible at this point o try and educate the media about the shortcomings of LEED when they have only recently just come to grasp what LEED is. So for my projects to get the proper 'green recognition' they deserve I have to 'un-green' them to fit into LEED's version of what green is.

LEED has it's merits in the commercial sector, but the cost of it combined with its failure to truly achieve its intended goals makes it unnecessary for builders and designers who are thinking much more outside the proverbial 'green building box' and building greener houses than they could'ev using LEED. I see LEED as more of one stop shop for builders who want to build green, but have no clue where to begin. In this instance LEED is extremely valuable. But for designers and builders who are experienced in green building LEED is a costly stifling speed bump. This will definitely be the only time we will be doing LEED...$3000 per house could be used in a much better fashion.

As an architect engaged in green buildings in the high end residential arena, I have to laugh at the critics of "monster" homes and agree with most of KimJanne's comments.

Ask yourself this: Does the environment care what 'use' a structure has? If a McMansion is defined as say a home over 8,000 sf and such a home is invariably not green, how can we say any building over 8,000 sf is green or sustainable? Dictating home sizes for all, including the wealthy and uber-wealthy, is called social engineering.

We must not talk about home size, especially of the rich, but should concentrate on size of homes for the majority and make them smaller instead. Homes for the wealthy are typically of high quality which can't be said for the majority. We should instead focus on how we build all project, especially McMansions, and support all projects that challenge the status quo of the building industry and employ materials and methods that LEED to more energy efficient structures, regardless of their size or use.

Only then can we make real change occur...it's the rich that usually help pave the way for the poor...and all steps in the sustainability arena should be lauded not criticized.

First, I would like to say that I think many LEED certified buildings do not deserve to be labeled 'green'. They have too many significant drawbacks. People should be attempting to build the 'greenest' buildings possible. However, many LEED certified buildings, in my opinion, are considerably green. And then there have been numerous buildings highlighted in TH which are NOT LEED certified but are highly green nonetheless. I do believe that there are significant problems with LEED certification. Problems which significantly dilute the point of LEED certification. However, I do not believe LEED should be scrapped; on the contrary, my belief is that some certification system like LEED is necessary. What we need to do is constantly improve the LEED certification process. And I am sure that the LEED people try to find ways of constantly improving it. I would be shocked if the 'checklist' was permanently static. Society needs some kind of objective system to classify which buildings are 'green' and which are not. Otherwise, every builder of every building will claim it to be green using whatever spurious and specious argument they can come up with. The LEED certification program is a good beginning - but it needs to move forward considerably and constantly. I am not opposed to LEED per say; I am opposed to those aspects that should not be (or that are not included) in the LEED system. I am for IMPROVING LEED - the more, the better. The faster, the better. So I bitch at those things that I disapprove of hoping that LEED will change those negative points in its process. NOT so that LEED disappears. And I am sure that many TH writers have the same attitude. Constant improvement. Striving for the green ideal. And NOT SETTLING FOR SECOND BEST! Society does not improve when people say: 'We need to take a hundred steps forward; we have taken 5 forward; people should be satisfied and stop complaining!' I am satisfied that 5 steps have been taken, but I will not stop complaining until we have finished the 100 step journey! And neither should TH!

'I consistently see your contributors bashing LEED cert structures of any significant size, presumably favoring smaller buildings. I also do not see support for this overwhelming viewpoint in any article.'
---Small buildings are green buildings. Unnecessarily large buildings are a waste of resources, which is INHERENTLY environmentally irresponsible. TH is a green website that pushes environmental responsibility - in every aspect, all the time, without exception. So yes often TH writers do bash LEED buildings - when those buildings deserve to be criticized. But they also often praise LEED buildings. Why do you go out of your way to make it sound like TH only opposes LEED buildings? And for your info, there are plenty of individuals, orgs, websites that take the same attitude as TH.

'I would like to take this as an opportunity to question Treehugger in it's motives. What is the desired result of your environmentalism?'
---I will do the same. What are your motives in posting this? What are you trying to achieve by trying to discredit TH? Do you have some special economic interest at stake that pushes you to try to discredit TH's attitude? Who do you work for? Where do you have your money invested? Do you have an unnecessary McMansion yourself? Along with an unnecessary SUV? Etc.

'The trouble is that environmentalism is attached by this mechanism to ideas that will make it impractical for the general population. This relegates it to a fringe movement.'
---TH goes out of its way to help people adopt green habits and technologies on all levels in all aspects. Trying to help the poor and the rich. Trying to be 'practical' is NOT some valid twisted excuse for turning a blind eye to what is environmentally irresponsible. Greens do NOT ignore what is anti-green. Anti-greens do that. And for your info, environmentalism is NOT a fringe movement. If you really think it a fringe movement, then you need to go to a law library of ANY country and start spending the rest of your life trying to figure out how a 'fringe' movement managed to get an infinite number of environmental laws passed - that doesn't happen when 'green' thinking is a 'fringe'!

'No matter how en vogue it is at the moment,'
---Environmentalism is NOT a vogue. You need to take a good look at reality. Environmental sentiment has increased and hardened constantly for many decades. It is only going to constantly get larger and stronger. It is your 'thinking' that is the passing fad, just like slavery was an inexcusable passing fad.

'environmentalism will never catch on when associated with this anti-wealth, anti-development, approaching socialism slant that I see attached to it.'
---Anti-wealth? Anti-development? Socialism? Being green and being wealthy are not incompatible. Not all wealthy people are constantly spending their money irresponsibly. Being green and being pro-development, in my opinion, are one and the same. Not all development is done irresponsibly; sustainable development is more than possible and is the only long-term development that is in society's best interest. And I am an ardent green AND a capitalist. True free-marketers don't ignore the social costs imposed by the externalities that industries refuse to incorporate into their balance sheets. Environmentalism is NOT associated with anti-wealth, anti-development, socialism. That is the 'association', the stickers, that ardent anti-greens go out of their way to stick on environmentalism to get society to back away from it. Don't you think it ironic that you start your post protesting against TH's 'dogmas' but you seem to have no trouble whatsoever in practicing your own form of mischievious 'dogma'?

'SUVs, big houses, opulent and excessive construction... these things are not inherently bad.'
---No they are not. Someone driving an SUV when they can just as well meet their needs with a small compact IS INHERENTLY BAD. Someone with a big house that can just as well meet their needs with a smaller house IS INHERENTLY BAD. Someone building two homes when they can just as easily meet their needs with just one IS INHERENTLY BAD. A 'no-limits-to-consumption' attitude IS INHERENTLY BAD. The planet does NOT have the resources to support over 6 billion people with this attitude!

'They are a natural product of our society, and we cannot change "society". We can work to make it sustainable.'
---First, it is not a NATURAL product of our society, and we CAN change society. Just like slavery was NOT a natural part of society (even though that was the attitude of the vast majority of Americans at one time), and slavery COULD be eliminated (even though it was the attitude of the vast majority of Americans at one time that it could NOT be changed). Overconsumption is NOT a 'natural' part of ANY society. And all societies can change and improve, ALWAYS. As has been the case since the dawn of man. Sustainability can not be achieved with ONLY an unrealistic expectation of some technological utopian fixes. Technology ALONE is NOT going to put our societies in a position of sustainability! At least not until some point in the VERY FAR DISTANT UNKNOWN future.

'I guess that I would rather see a LEED cert McMansion than an uncertified one. '
---I would also rather see a LEED cert McMansion than an uncertified one. And TH has CONSTANTLY made the same point. But I would MUCH RATHER see the best solution: a small LEED certified home! And that is the point TH stresses over and over.

'The stance put forth by many of your contributors that they would rather not see a McMansion at all, but a tiny cottage, is just impractical and counter-productive.'
---Why exactly do you go out of your way to distort the opinions that have been expressed by TH? Any particular reason you are trying to stuff deceptive comments into the mouths of TH writers? TH does not try to push everyone to live in a 'tiny cottage'. It tries to get people to stop building unnecessarily large homes. Either you are confused about TH or you are purposefully trying to deceive the rest of us! Second, what is counter-productive is for someone to try to get the environmental movement to adopt beliefs and attitudes that are DAMAGING to the environment, as yours are. And what is impractical is to try to change the current of a river, as you are trying to do by trying to get society to be LESS green rather than more.

'For sustainable technology to exist and flourish, people need to not have to give up anything to embrace it.'
---You are confused. The reason we NEED sustainable technology is BECAUSE we have to stop consuming so many resources! Our planet can not cope with humanity's rate or resource consumption as is. We need to DRASTICALLY decrease mankind's collective rate of resource depletion. And sustainable tech is a key determinant in achieving that. BUT SO IS stopping reckless unneeded wasteful overconsumption and overpopulation. WE WILL NOT SOLVE OUR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS WITH JUST TECHNOLOGY! At least not until some point in the VERY FAR DISTANT UNKNOWN future.

'More than that, it should make more economical sense that it's antiquated alternative. Only then will the world change, friends. You hate to hear it, but money, not feelings is the solution to environmental degredation.'
---Friend, you will hate to hear this but it is the simple truth: your attitude and your beliefs are part of the fundamental problem of the environmental crises that this planet faces. The planet can not sustain current resource consumption patterns. Sustainable tech needs to be developed to deal with this. OVERCONSUMPTION in parts of the world needs to end to deal with this. Overpopulation has to be solved to deal with this. These three things will not be effectively dealt with when people put sole emphasis on one to the explicit exclusion of the others, as you have done here. And for your info, environmental crisis IS money! Droughts cause economic (money, money) hardship and require govt. investments to deal with it (money, money). Fires cause economic (money, money) hardship and require govt. investments to deal with it (money, money). Floods cause encomic (money, money) hardships that require govt. investments to deal with (money, money). Etc. Etc. Etc. Trust me when I tell you that most environmentalists (such as me) are concerned about the environment because of how destroying it is going to negatively impact our lives (ultimately meaning money, money). You seem to think the only money that matters is the front end money at the exclusion of the back end money.

Hi all,

I'm a frequent reader of treehugger, and this is my first comment here.

Personally, if I was to write a checklist of sustainability for buildings, or anything, the very first thing to be asked would be: does it really NEED to be built?

Obviously, if it does, we are expected to see it being done in the most efficient way. This involves lots of research, and all the green geekery popping up everyday, in all countries.

However, deciding whether something needs to be built is a lot trickier. To quote the recent interview with David Holmgren, here on TH, take clothes, for example: you shouldn't need to create t-shirts out of recycled bottles if there's already enough clothes in the world for the next 20 years.

So, to decide if the building should or should not be built, I'd first look at the motivations behind it, and then ask: what problems are we going to solve with this building that we can't solve with the ones we have today?

Yes... it takes a lot of thinking.

happy new year, and good luck to all of us.