LEED certification neglects health of residents

No man is an island and, increasingly, no house stands alone. It hardly helps to have solar panels on your rooftop if the surrounding buildings blot out the sun. Several organizations have partnered up to expand LEED certification and examine the way structures and spaces fit together as a whole. LEED certification, however, ultimately falls short in measuring a building's safety for human habitation.

Along with the U.S. Green Building Council and Congress for the New Urbanism, the National Resources Defense Council has developed a LEED for Neighborhood Development rating system with a goal of reducing urban sprawl and encouraging healthy living. "Green neighborhoods foster social inclusivity as they provide accessibility to transportation, jobs, resources, education and promote healthier lifestyles," states the NRDC press release. A holistic approach to urban development is a positive step forward for the conservation of both energy and resources, but the downside of LEED certification is that it can come at the expense of human health.

LEED, which stands for Leadership in Energy and Design, awards points based on categories including energy conservation, water efficiency, improved air quality and design innovation. It was established to encourage green building and create a common standard of measurement. The points needed for certification can be earned in any category, which means developers can favor one area over another. For example, you might earn points for saving resources by building a small overhang on a building, despite the fact that a larger overhang would create more shade and reduce energy consumption throughout the building's lifetime. Some developers might choose to save money now rather than focus on the future benefits.

Environment and Human Health, Inc. (EHHI), a foundation-funded nonprofit, recently issued a report exposing the flaws of LEED certification. The organization recommends using a more simplified point system, deducting credits for the use of known hazardous chemicals, requiring the postoccupancy testing of air and water quality and instituting a ban on tobacco products and pesticides within and near all LEED-certified buildings.

Nearly four times as many credits are awarded for energy conservation as for protection of indoor air quality from hazardous chemicals, according to the report, and it is possible for a building to be certified at the “platinum” level with no credits awarded for air quality at all. The LEED program has successfully encouraged more efficient heating through solar panels, geothermal wells and simple window placement. Yet, because greener buildings are tightly sealed to conserve energy, even certified buildings can have poor indoor air quality. Homeowners are reminded to use fans and open windows to circulate the air, but a more ideal solution would be the elimination of toxic chemicals and materials from building materials in the first place.

Currently the program doesn't award points for climate-appropriate designs. In an arid region, water conservation becomes much more vital. Under the present system, installing a low-flush toilet in a house in rainy Washington receives the same credit as installing one in a house in New Mexico.

The LEED program leaves the responsibility for good health in the homeowner's hands, and new residents may be completely unaware of the pollutants in their homes. In California, for example, chamber tests for indoor emissions are conducted at 73 degrees. If a homeowner doesn't use air conditioning in the summer, the level of toxins like formaldehyde can increase beyond recommended safe levels. The California Air Resources Board also does not govern wood products, which means fiberglass and bamboo, which is often coated in a formaldehyde resin, can give off undetected emissions.

A building that makes its residents sick, forcing them to relocate or rebuild the structure, is not truly green. The well-being of people should be weighed as heavily as the well-being of the environment, and a point system that acknowledges this will ensure that these structures and communities are places worth living in.