Home » Opinion » Foreign Views
Toxic chemicals pollute 'green' buildings
By Robin Guenther |
April 6, 2013, Saturday
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
THE war over toxic chemicals and human health is spilling over into places we live and work: our buildings.
The American Chemical Council (ACC) has launched an expensive and focused attack on the US Green Building Council (USGBC) to protect the status quo of a small set of bad-actor manufacturers of toxic and obsolete chemicals. But innovative companies across the building industries and human health advocates are fighting back.
The American Chemical Council is lobbying to end the federal government's use of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) building certification system unless USGBC removes all references to human health.
Why does a chemical industry trade association think better buildings are such a threat?
The USGBC has transformed the global building industry with its emphasis on high performance, low energy and healthier building practices through its LEED certification program. In only a decade, LEED plaques have become synonymous with the best buildings in the world.
USGBC's mission is to make buildings not only more energy-efficient, but also healthier spaces for those who inhabit them. The ACC, however, sees this as a dangerous threat to their member companies because a few of them make a pretty penny producing controversial chemicals.
Spreading misinformation
So if you can't beat 'em, lobby against 'em, right? ACC is doing what it does best - spreading misinformation and shoving truckloads of cash into lobbying efforts to keep the market from abandoning toxic materials.
They've even gone so far as to form the laughable "American High-Performance Buildings Coalition," a group whose membership reads like a who's who of industries that make unhealthy products, all uniting to lobby against LEED. From big chemicals to vinyl to adhesives to petrochemicals - they're all here.
These toxic trade associations are trying to convince us that they are the ones who truly support "green" building. Perhaps next they'll suggest that their products only increase your odds of developing "green" cancer.
While they claim LEED is not consensus-based, this is demonstrably false. Any revision to the LEED standard must be approved through a democratic balloting process open to all 14,000 members of USGBC. These members are architects, engineers, builders, contractors and product manufacturers.
In fact, the ACC and many of its member companies are participating in the LEED development process. But when the professionals who purchase building materials began to suggest that a LEED credit be available for purchasing healthier building materials, suddenly the process is flawed, and not consensus-based.
Let's hope these companies wake up and start to reign in their out-of-control trade association before people really start to notice who's behind the curtain.
Green buildings are about more than energy and water conservation; they must also include consideration of human health. Major manufacturers of health-care building products have begun substituting PVC and phthalate plasticizers with safer alternatives.
While the ACC protests these LEED credits, we would venture to say their innovative members are investing in R&D to move to safer alternatives precisely because of these initiatives.
The construction industry needs the USGBC and LEED; citizens do, too. Someone has to make the push to get these chemicals out of our faces.
Robin Guenther is an architect and leader in sustainable healthcare design in the US. Copyright: American Forum.
The American Chemical Council (ACC) has launched an expensive and focused attack on the US Green Building Council (USGBC) to protect the status quo of a small set of bad-actor manufacturers of toxic and obsolete chemicals. But innovative companies across the building industries and human health advocates are fighting back.
The American Chemical Council is lobbying to end the federal government's use of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) building certification system unless USGBC removes all references to human health.
Why does a chemical industry trade association think better buildings are such a threat?
The USGBC has transformed the global building industry with its emphasis on high performance, low energy and healthier building practices through its LEED certification program. In only a decade, LEED plaques have become synonymous with the best buildings in the world.
USGBC's mission is to make buildings not only more energy-efficient, but also healthier spaces for those who inhabit them. The ACC, however, sees this as a dangerous threat to their member companies because a few of them make a pretty penny producing controversial chemicals.
Spreading misinformation
So if you can't beat 'em, lobby against 'em, right? ACC is doing what it does best - spreading misinformation and shoving truckloads of cash into lobbying efforts to keep the market from abandoning toxic materials.
They've even gone so far as to form the laughable "American High-Performance Buildings Coalition," a group whose membership reads like a who's who of industries that make unhealthy products, all uniting to lobby against LEED. From big chemicals to vinyl to adhesives to petrochemicals - they're all here.
These toxic trade associations are trying to convince us that they are the ones who truly support "green" building. Perhaps next they'll suggest that their products only increase your odds of developing "green" cancer.
While they claim LEED is not consensus-based, this is demonstrably false. Any revision to the LEED standard must be approved through a democratic balloting process open to all 14,000 members of USGBC. These members are architects, engineers, builders, contractors and product manufacturers.
In fact, the ACC and many of its member companies are participating in the LEED development process. But when the professionals who purchase building materials began to suggest that a LEED credit be available for purchasing healthier building materials, suddenly the process is flawed, and not consensus-based.
Let's hope these companies wake up and start to reign in their out-of-control trade association before people really start to notice who's behind the curtain.
Green buildings are about more than energy and water conservation; they must also include consideration of human health. Major manufacturers of health-care building products have begun substituting PVC and phthalate plasticizers with safer alternatives.
While the ACC protests these LEED credits, we would venture to say their innovative members are investing in R&D to move to safer alternatives precisely because of these initiatives.
The construction industry needs the USGBC and LEED; citizens do, too. Someone has to make the push to get these chemicals out of our faces.
Robin Guenther is an architect and leader in sustainable healthcare design in the US. Copyright: American Forum.
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
