USGBC: Meaningful Labels for Every Building. Good Thinking.

The U.S. Green Building Council, the powerful organization that oversees the prestigious and sometimes controversial, LEED label (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) has a new goal: an environmental label for every building in the U.S., similar to the "Nutrition Facts" label that comes on all food products.

The idea was promoted by Rick Fedrizzi, president of the USGBC and keynote speaker at Sunday's Healthy Buildings 2009 conference in Syracuse, NY. The label would seek to combine energy efficiency quantification with proof of healthy indoor air quality (which happens to be one of theEPA's top 5 environmental health threats, but, as the Post-Standard reports, is among the nation's lowest policy priorities).

Fedrizzi was adamant about the merits of green buildings: "People heal faster in green hospitals, they are more productive in green offices, they have fewer accidents in green factories and learn better in green schools."

We couldn't agree more.  As the Environmental Leader pointed out (in a great, in-depth piece on the USGBC's ambitions), buildings are responsible for 40% of the nation's primary energy use, 72% of electricity consumption, 39% of CO2 emissions, and 13.6% of potable water consumption.    Those numbers are too big to ignore, and the USGBC lately has recognized that they cannot be ignored. The environmental and macro-economic impacts of efficiency are clear. But just as important is that information be placed in the hands of homeowners and potential home buyers, so that we know not only how much energy a building is designed to use, but also how much it actually uses, when it is operational.

In the absence of clear operational standards, we will find ourselves facing a label susceptible to gimmicks, and capable of tarnishing the reputation of efficiency standards. Not sure of the risk? Consider "fat free" foods that warn they are not low calorie. In other words, they won't make you fat, unless you eat them.  As an industry, we cannot afford to tout meaningless standards. The stakes are too high.

Though some want to do away with LEED, I've made the case that it is the dominant green standard, and is moving in the right direction on energy, perhaps just not urgently enough. This announcement indicates that the movement is real.