USGBC's open letter about health and the LEED rating system
We could not agree more with the need for serious action on improved indoor air quality. But your report fails to provide a complete picture of how interconnected the built environment and public health truly are.
Since the launch of the first LEED rating system 10 years ago, we have been on a continuous improvement cycle to enhance the LEED system. Our goal is to continually evolve this tool that engages everyone involved with buildings — from the owner to the designer to the manager and the occupants — to act and deliver high performance healthy buildings and communities.
Can LEED as a tool be improved? Yes, always! Does LEED reflect the realities of a voluntary system of change? Yes! In other words, we are always helping to guide the market, balancing forces that want status quo and those that want immediate, far-reaching change. We do not do this work as a government. We do this work as a nonprofit organization, the same as you.
So please help us. The expertise of EHHI could be a rich resource to continue the evolution of LEED. Having the opportunity to work with very well-respected public health experts that have issued the call to arms on chemicals of concern is very exciting to us. We believe that LEED is an appropriate mechanism to move our shared agenda forward.
We’d like to move quickly. Please accept our invitation to meet with us in Washington, D.C., or New Haven, in June, at a time that is convenient. We would like to explore how we might add your specific expertise to the work of the hundreds of volunteer professionals (including noted indoor air quality experts) charged with the ongoing development of LEED. We also believe that a study of LEED buildings, rather than the rating system itself, would clarify many of these benefits. To that end we want to welcome you to join us in studying this issue as part of our Building Performance Partnership.
The opinions expressed by MNN Bloggers and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of MNN.com. While we have reviewed their content to make sure it complies with our Terms and Conditions, MNN is not responsible for the accuracy of any of their information.