As Fast Company outlines in its article this month, a study by Environment and Human Health, Inc. has criticized LEED buildings for failing to protect against toxic indoor environments. The studies found that even the higher levels of certification allowed hazardous chemicals in the door. I have no doubt that there are things that can be implemented in LEED to encourage reduction of these chemicals in their buildings. There is no doubt that LEED has some flaws, as any rating system would, and that it will need to be continuously updated to continue to push the standards of green building.
But, should we really be pointing the fingers at LEED in this case? What they fail to talk about is how these buildings compare to traditional buildings. Is there any reduction in harmful substances? After all, particularly in the LEED-EBOM standard, there are several credits given for things like Green Cleaning and improved ventilation. They're doing more than most.
These toxic chemicals are prevalent, not just where we live and work, but in all kinds of products we buy--many of which don't have to disclose all of their ingredients on the label. Organizations like Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families have been actively fighting for improved regulation and protections from the government, but with limited media exposure.
So, could LEED find ways to make their rating system more encouraging of toxic-free environments? Of course. But just pointing the finger their way for failing to eradicate harmful chemicals from their buildings misses the opportunity to raise the awareness and discussion towards the greater problem of toxic chemicals in all aspects of our lives.
Why LEED Should Not Shoulder All the Blame for Toxicity
As Fast Company outlines in its article this month, a study by Environment and Human Health, Inc. has criticized LEED buildings for failing to protect against toxic indoor environments. The studies found that even the higher levels of certification allowed hazardous chemicals in the door. I have no doubt that there are things that can be implemented in LEED to encourage reduction of these chemicals in their buildings. There is no doubt that LEED has some flaws, as any rating system would, and that it will need to be continuously updated to continue to push the standards of green building.
But, should we really be pointing the fingers at LEED in this case? What they fail to talk about is how these buildings compare to traditional buildings. Is there any reduction in harmful substances? After all, particularly in the LEED-EBOM standard, there are several credits given for things like Green Cleaning and improved ventilation. They're doing more than most.
But the toxicity argument has an entirely different obstacle to overcome. Even the study itself notes, "The underlying problem is that thousands of different chemicals, many of them well recognized to be hazardous, are allowed by the federal government to become components of building materials. Very few of these chemicals have been tested to identify their toxicity, environmental fate or the danger they pose to human health."
These toxic chemicals are prevalent, not just where we live and work, but in all kinds of products we buy--many of which don't have to disclose all of their ingredients on the label. Organizations like Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families have been actively fighting for improved regulation and protections from the government, but with limited media exposure.
So, could LEED find ways to make their rating system more encouraging of toxic-free environments? Of course. But just pointing the finger their way for failing to eradicate harmful chemicals from their buildings misses the opportunity to raise the awareness and discussion towards the greater problem of toxic chemicals in all aspects of our lives.