Going Green?

I recently had the opportunity to write a research paper about LEED, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. LEED is the leader of the green movement in America and has received lots of funding and support from the government. It is currently being required or highly recommended in 22 states by local goverments. The purpose of LEED is to provide a rating system that builders can use to compare buildings in terms of their "greenness." I decided to investigate LEED and found many complaints with the system. The number one complaint about LEED is the enormous cost and difficulty in certifying a building. I found while researching that the costs are truly mind blowing. For example, in Aspen, Colorado, a company was going to certify two buildings that they had been working on but decided against it when they found out that the process would cost 70 thousand dollars. Another example of the outrageous costs occurred in Park City, Utah, where they were constructing the Park City Ice Arena. They were planning on certifying the building, but discovered that it would cost $27,500 to become LEED certified. The mayor decided to fore-go the certification and use the money to purchase three wind turbines instead. Another article I found in my research stated that LEED's budget consisted of 50 million dollars and that 95% of their funding came through their fees and accreditation program and that they only employed 116 people. Obviously something is amiss. The reasoning behind the large fees was supposed to be for the advancement of green technologies, but so far the results have been dismal. Another major flaw that I found was their point system. They rewarded contractors the same amount of points for a bike rack as they did for a 1.7 million dollar mechanical system that lowered energy costs by 500 thousand dollars per year. Obviously the system is out of balance. Other articles showed that many builders would rather buy a bike rack rather than spend the 1.7 million dollars to earn the extra point, go figure. LEED has has also provided incentive for builders to install many unnecessary items to receive more points. Bike racks have been found in desert locations where biking would be impossible, yet points were awarded. Other examples include installing solar panels in shady and rainy locations where they are completely ineffective. The system is also a failure in that it is not climate specific. For example the city of Seattle, Washington is held to the same standards as Tempe, Arizona. Each city has different needs, yet the same points are awarded to builders in Arizona, for installing effective items such as solar panels, are also awarded to builders in Seattle for the same installment. To those who don't know, solar panels are pretty ineffective in Seattle's rainy climate, whereas they are a good source of energy in Arizona. Another major concern that many builders have with LEED is that the system actually penalizes you for putting in large air handling systems. They are finding now that many of these LEED buildings do not have sufficient airflow and that the lack of air flow combined with tighter outer shells are actually causing people to become sick. The problem is currently being diagnosed as tight building syndrome and has come as a direct result of LEED. Their are many in the industry that love LEED which blows my mind. How could someone that believes in sustainability believe in such a corrupt and unsustainable system. I do believe that it's important to lower energy costs and build buildings that are durable, but I think that this is more of an economic incentive rather than an environmentalist one. I believe that environmentalists are piggy-backing the economic need to find cheaper energy sources and using this need as a way to push their political agendas. With the supposed threat of global warming and the loss of polar bears as their poster children, it is easy for them to jump on board the recent energy crisis and say that if we do not act now,there will be no future for our children. However, Global warming and the polar bear crisis are some of the biggest scandals of all time. Global warming has no scientific proof whatsoever. Their are so many external factors, such as the Earth's tilt, orbit, and sun's energy output that it is impossible to point the finger at mankind. Also, if anyone's looked at the history of our world they would realize that the worst times in the history of our country occurred when the world was cooling down. In 1815, Mt. Tambora in Indonesia erupted sending the world into a mini ice age. The ash didn't allow the sun's rays to penetrate the atmosphere and many of the world's crops failed. The following year, 1816, one of the coldest years on record, was known as the year of poverty. In my geology class, my teacher Doctor Clark said, "A warmer planet supports more life," and guess what...he's right. The polar bear population has grown despite what uninformed photographers are saying. Scientists and Canadian government workers are reporting a large increase in numbers. When you look at the coldest years, you will see that thousands die from starvation and crop failure. Many renown scientists have admitted that global warming is a lie and can not be proven and that the carbon crisis is a marketing ploy. Hopefully the world will wake up and smell the roses. We need to take care of our planet, but we don't need to force the world to shut down. The University of Oregon released a study stating that the best thing Americans could do to save the planet would be to stop having children. We are obviously being taken advantage of as a society by environmentalists. Their intentions to save the world may be galant, but their philosophies are not. When the world comes to it's senses and realizes that these ideas are flawed, these new green systems and ideals, that are making a select few rich, will be cast out and so they should.