When One Green Building Certification Isn’t Enough

Don’t get us wrong, we like LEED a lot.  We believe in the system not just because it’s precisely the line of work we’re in, but because over the past twenty years LEED has proven to be objective, rigorous, and efficient in establishing green building standards. 

Infographic by Brandy Agerbeck

There are still some kinks to be ironed out in LEED, specifically the way LEED designers can simply cherry-pick the details that would accrue them the most LEED points.  LEED is still not a perfect system, but it’s safe to say that with LEED v4, it’s a lot more mature now. 

But LEED is not everything as well.  Fortunately, that’s where the other green building certification bodies step in.

Passivhaus

Passivhaus

Passivhaus has been around since the 1990s in Germany and other parts of Europe, but outside of those countries there aren’t a lot of Passivhaus buildings to speak of.  In the U.S., for instance, Passivhaus isn’t very popular, specifically for these five reasons.

We’ll admit though that there is something very commendable about the whole Passivhaus movement.  Air-tight, well-ventilated, energy-conscious homes with low impact on the environment—what’s not to like about it?  Actually, Passivhaus is a rigorous and exacting standard, based on its very specific requirements:

•a maximum space heating and cooling demand of less than 15 kWh/m2.year or a maximum heating and cooling load of 10W/m2

•a maximum total primary energy demand of 120 kWh/m2/year

•an air change rate of no more than 0.6 air changes per hour @ 50 Pa

Understandably, Passivhaus won’t be a perfect fit for the climates of other countries (remember, it originated in Germany,) unless the Passive House Institute US (PHIUS) is willing to tweak a few details to accommodate unique circumstances.  The thing is, we like Passivhaus the way it is, especially its adherence to details just to achieve something succinct and efficient. 

Living Building Challenge

Living Building Challenge

The Living Building Challenge uses seven “petals”—site, water, energy, health, materials, equity, and beauty—to measure a building’s performance.  The floral reference might seem either sappy or romantic, but it actually stems (see what I did there?) from the philosophy that buildings can “function as elegantly and efficiently as a flower.”

Flowers aside, the Living Building Challenge is a bit more rigorous in the sense that project can’t choose which imperatives they will pursue.  Each imperative is required in LBC, unlike with LEED where, as we’ve said, you can pick feasible points in each category. 

More importantly, the Living Building Challenge is based on actual building performance for one full year.  (And that’s why they named it the Living Building Challenge, with emphasis on Challenge.)  LEED has always been criticized for its preference for energy and water efficiency models, instead of something more actual and tangible.  So in this respect, we’ll have to admit that the Living Building Challenge easily trumps LEED. 

More head-to-head comparison of LBC and LEED in this article.

Green Globes

Green Globes

Run by the Green Building Initiative (GBI), Green Globes scores points as an alternative green building certification because of its flexible, user-friendly, and DIY approach, compared to LEED’s meticulous and rigorous paperwork which normally requires the hiring of certified professional consultants.   

Admittedly, Green Globes isn’t as prestigious as LEED, although Green Globes recently went on equal footing with LEED when it was made an alternative green building certification for US federal buildings.  Nowadays though, the Green Globes system has become tainted because of the nature of industries of the various members of the organization.  Some of these member-companies deal in chemicals, vinyl, plastics, clear-cut timber, which are specifically banned by LEED.  This might lead some to believe that Green Globes was just created to accommodate those companies.

We shouldn’t be quick to dismiss Green Globes though, since it’s still useful for certifying low-profile buildings with more modest budgets and time constraints.

* * * 

Of course, there’s more to green building than the abovementioned certification bodies.  Politics aside, it’s important to note that they aren’t in conflict with each other.  Rather, these and the many other green building standards out there inspire all of us to refine and strengthen our goals to achieve that truly efficient and low-impact built environment.