Federal Agencies Roll Out Greenhouse Gas Regulations, Initiatives

The 1990s was a lost decade on the climate change issue in the U.S., mostly thanks to the hidebound U.S. Senate.  In 1993 it defeated President Clinton’s BTU tax proposal, in 1997 it repudiated the Kyoto Protocol (which at that time still technically was only a draft, not a final accord) with its 95-0 vote in favor of the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, and in 1998 it defeated  “America’s Climate Security Act of 2007,” also known as the Lieberman-Warner bill. 

EPA Administrator Carol Browner, in choosing to be MIA, also served as an obstacle, albeit a quiet and passive one.  So President Clinton and Vice President Gore essentially limited the administration’s remaining climate change efforts to signing up corporate partners to its voluntary Climate Change Action Plan, supporting research, and launching an earnest but low-level public awareness effort that made a point to avoid the media, in which this writer participated.  Of course, the U.S. and the world community then lost another precious eight years under Dubyah and his administration, no need to elaborate. 

Today, 16 years after the U.S. Government should have started mobilizing the country to address global warming, we finally have a White House, an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and a Department of Energy (DOE) moving forward with meaningful measures to curb U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. 

LEED: The Emperor Has No Clothes

The highly touted LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification program for energy performance of new homes, schools, and commercial buildings has until now outrun its mostly hidden flaws.  LEED has been a resounding green business success story, enticing thousands of building owners clamoring for certification, spawning a thriving cottage industry of designers and accredited certifiers, and attaining most favored status among climate-conscious municipalities and politicians nationwide. Saving energy is LEED's raison d’être, with the resulting projected decreases in greenhouse gas emissions the reason for the program's sex appeal among the serious-minded. LEED's commercial successes may continue but its flaws have finally begun catching up to the hype.

As reported by Mireya Navarro in the August 30 New York Times, in addition to other sources, a recent review by the program's administrators, the nonprofit U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), found that a stunning 25 percent of LEED commercial buildings sampled did not live up to expectations for energy efficiency. Further, most certified buildings had not even been monitored for actual performance. A smart-looking green design suffused with good intentions and energy- or water-saving features was generally all that was needed (along with an ability to count points) for your office building to score one of those snazzy LEED certification plaques.

For those of us who have worked in the environmental certification business, LEED's overblown claims of energy savings have been an open secret.