The wood wars have begun the anti-LEED movement
As Lloyd mentions in his article. I have no love for LEED. I've regularly bashed on them about the CEO being paid half a million dollars, about the public comments review being a sham, and how the whole system has become a bureaucratic nightmare with marginal results at best.
So I'm a bit suprised to see that one of the simplest and actually somewhat benefitial credits is now the source of a funded anti-LEED movement.
Now I have no incentive to support SFI. But I likewise have no incentive to come to LEED's defense. Would the failure of LEED cause a drop in green building construction or open the door to better rating system? If LEED survives will they be more emboldend to ignore public feedback?
I read some time ago, I believe it was when USGBC did an in depth comparison between LEED 2009 and CalGreen (both residential and commercial), that USGBC is hopeful that state and local green building codes will adopt and LEED as their baseline and refine to suit their goals. USGBC could then concentrate on raising the bar (level of performance). Is the future of LEED to be become so exclusive that it will cause projects to consider alternative green building codes?
As a member of the NAHB, I also support the ANSI approved ICC 700-2008 National Green Building Standard that is the result of the partnership between the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) and the International Code Council (ICC).
ICC 700-2008 provides alternative choices for certified wood-based products:
The Intent of MRc7: Certified Wood is to encourage environmentally responsible forest management
- American Forest Foundation's American Tree Farm Systems (ATFS)
- Canadian Standards Association's Sustainable Forest Management System Standards (CSA Z809)
- Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)
- Program for Endorsement of Forest Certification Systems (PEFC)
- Sustainable Forestry Initiative Program (SFI)
- other product programs mutually recognized by PEFC
At some point, as a professional advocating responsible environmental stewardship, I will need to ask the client if they want a green building or a plaque?
FSC lumber is not available in most parts of the U.S., unless it's shipped long distances. Most lumber yards do not stock this type of lumber, because of the added costs of documentation, chain of custody issues, etc.
Additionally, it's apparent that watchdogs have to be present in the host country to insure that civil rights are not violated.
But this is what happens when the religion of environmentalism gets caught up in social causes, especially overseas social causes.
I would be far more interested in using materials grown sustainably from here in the U.S., than say, lumber shipped in from Indonesia that someone SAYS was produced while "respecting the rights" of indigenous peoples.
The focus of FSC wood, should be in the way it's grown and harvested and how that affects the environment, NOT the pay scale and retirement package of the truck driver or saw mill operator.
When you start doing that, you make it simply not worth the effort.
JOBBOSSC3 / DFW TX / TUE FEB 28, 2012 / 7:25 AM CST
"The focus of FSC wood, should be in the way it's grown and harvested and how that affects the environment, NOT the pay scale and retirement package of the truck driver or saw mill operator."
One of LEED's three pillars - social responsibility
If you're looking for suppliers in the UK
Originally Posted by lufo
Jobbossc3, I think a lot of the "90% of FSC is outside the US while 100% of SFI is in North America" talk is word play and a diversion.
SFI in 2009 had 181 million acres total land certified. (58 million in US)
FSC in 2009 had 304 million acres total land certified. (31.5 million in US)
Last edited by faramir02; 02-28-2012 at 01:13 PM.
Originally Posted by rookwood
Yes; and the "Achilles Heel".
JOBBOSSC3 / DFW TX / TUE FEB 28, 2012 / 11:31 PM CST
Originally Posted by lufo
Usually about 10,000 miles from where your project is.
JOBBOSSC3 /DFW TX / WED FEB 29, 2012 / 6:59 AM CST
"...NOT the pay scale and retirement package of the truck driver or saw mill operator..."
I have no problem whatsoever being socially responsible with regard to the decisions I make. However, when you begin to dictate what I must do to protect or support wages and benefits, you are are taking a political position. Whether I agree or not, you have lost all my support!
I am pro-environment, anti-environmentalist and a religious conservative. I never allow my religious or political beliefs to interfere with my advocation of responsible environmental stewardship.
I really try not to bring religion into discussions on the forum... it's usually not very productive. (I'm also quite tired of any political debate.) Know first off that I'm not trying to start an argument, but maybe an interesting discussion... But I would assert, with all due respect and as a fellow religious conservative, that it is part of my (our?) calling to advocate and practice responsible environmental stewardship.
Originally Posted by rookwood
The problem with the "social responsibility" component of LEED, is that you're being asked to take someone else's word for what may be happening a half a world away.
Originally Posted by sbyrktct
We are constantly told of workers in China and other countries making pennies per hour, but no mention is made that those pennies in THIER countries may be the equivalent of 30 or 40 dollars per hour in the U.S.
Unions in the U.S. have long exaggerated the plight of foreign workers in order to bolster their own positions back home.
Plus, all this "caring" about the rights of others can and has backfired.
Years ago, when the Cesar Chavez groups started complaining about foreign workers from the Jamaica coming into Florida every season to harvest sugar cane, the growers simply automated their production and fired all the workers, never to bring them back.
What makes it worse, is that the "default" setting for whom to believe, seems to be the United Nations, the largest international criminal organization on earth.
This is what I meant in an earlier post when I said you cannot separate environmentalism from politics OR religion, for that matter.
Environmentalism IS a religion. It worships the creation, rather than the creator, portrays mankind as an enemy of nature and uses politics and the courts as a weapon, without which it could not survive.
This is contrary to Conservation, which, like environmentalism, advocates stewardship of the air, land and water, but which also recognizes that mankind is a part of nature, as are his endeavors and that they should all exist in synergy, not opposition to one another.
LEED, with it's mission of sustainability in construction and existing man made structures, recognizes conservation, but seems to advocate for environmentalism.
This tends to raise a bit of philosophical confusion, so to speak.
JOBBOSSC3 / DFW TX / THU MAR 01, 2012 / 11:24 PM CST
Last edited by JOBBOSSC3; 03-02-2012 at 07:39 AM.