Building or Buying Your Sustainable Home:
Cracks in the Green Mortar
by Rolf Priesnitz
In many countries, including the U.S. and Canada, there are no federal “green
building standards” in the way there are federal organic food or drinking water
standards. Given that vacuum, many organizations have created their own
certification programs, hoping to capture growing demand for environmentally
friendly and healthy buildings. This column has described many of these programs
over the past couple of years.
While I applaud and support these efforts as important steps on the path to
sustainability, I think it’s important to understand – and learn from – their
flaws. After all, some of these programs are being used as the basis for
building codes and tax credits. So I’d like to highlight some recently exposed
issues with the LEED and Energy Star programs.
LEED and Healthy Buildings
A recent study, entitled LEED Certification: Where Energy Efficiency Collides
with Human Health by the Connecticut-based non-profit Environment and Human
Health, Inc. (EHHI), found that LEED certification gives a false impression of
the safety of so-called “environmentally friendly” buildings. Currently, a
building achieves LEED status based on an aggregate score, with some
measurements, such as energy efficiency, weighing more towards the final score
than others, like air quality. EHHI, which is made up of doctors, public health
professionals and policy experts committed to the reduction of environmental
health risks to individuals, points out that it is possible for a building to
achieve the highest LEED certification, even if it makes no improvements in
indoor air quality, and in spite of well-recognized hazardous chemicals in the
building materials.
More energy efficient buildings may actually increase exposure to toxic
chemicals, because energy conservation often requires reducing air exchange
between indoors and outdoors. But the EHHI study notes that many of the tens of
thousands of building materials used today contain chemicals recognized by the
U.S. National Toxicology Program, the CDC, or the World Health Organization to
be hazardous, although few of them have been regulated in building products.
These products include pesticides, chemical components of plastics, flame
retardants, solvents, adhesives, paints and other surface applications, some of
which are carcinogens, neurotoxins, hormone mimics, reproductive toxins,
developmental toxins, or chemicals that either stimulate or suppress the immune
system.
“Although the primary stated purposes of the Green Building Council are to
promote both energy efficiency and human health, even the Council’s most
prestigious Platinum award does little to ensure that hazardous chemicals are
kept out of the certified buildings,” says John Wargo, a professor of Risk
Analysis and Environmental Policy at Yale University, and the study’s lead
author.
The study’s authors blame the LEED credit system for the problem and refer to
it as “something for all, guarantees for none.” They recommend that, rather than
issuing awards of “platinum,” “gold,” and so on, the Green Building Council
(GBC), which administers LEED certification, should require performance within
each of its categories (health, energy, sites, neighborhoods, etc.) on a zero to
one hundred scale. Another recommendation is that the GBC appoint more health
scientists and physicians to its board of directors.
Energy Star and Credibility
Energy Star is an international, government-backed label for products –
including homes – that supposedly meet certain specifications based on a set of
guiding principles designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other
pollutants caused by the inefficient use of energy. These principles are:
- Product categories must contribute significant energy savings nation-wide.
- Qualified products must deliver the features and performance demanded by
consumers, in addition to increased energy efficiency.
- If the qualified product costs more than a conventional, less-efficient
counterpart, purchasers will recover their investment in increased energy
efficiency through utility bill savings, within a reasonable period of time.
- Energy efficiency can be achieved through broadly available, non-proprietary technologies offered by more than one manufacturer.
- Product energy consumption and performance can be measured and verified
with testing.
- Labeling would effectively differentiate products and be visible for
purchasers.
In the U.S., the program – which began in 1992 – is run jointly by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Energy (DOE). In Canada,
it’s administered by Natural Resources Canada.
Governments in both countries offer tax credits and other incentives to
encourage the use of Energy Star products. For instance, approximately three
hundred million dollars from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will be
used for state rebate programs on energy-efficient products. Canada Mortgage
and Housing (CMHC) is promoting its program by which purchasers of certain
energy-efficient homes can benefit from a ten percent mortgage insurance premium
refund. Energy Star certified new homes in Saskatchewan and Ontario qualify for
the program, along with others such as R-2000 and LEED.
There is no doubt the program is popular. Concerned about the Energy Star
program’s vulnerability to fraud by companies wanting the lucrative symbol on
their products, the U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) researched the
program. In March, 2010, it released the results of a study that found the
Energy Star certification process was, indeed vulnerable to abuse because it
relies, for the most part, on self-certification and ensures increased sales for
successful applicants.
The GAO used covert testing, submitting applications for Energy Star
certification for twenty bogus products from fictitious people and companies.
Only two of the products were rejected by Energy Star. Certification was
obtained for fifteen products using fake energy efficiency claims.
One fake product, a gas-powered alarm clock, was supposed to be the size of a
small generator and was approved without Energy Star staff even reviewing the
company’s website or questioning any claims of efficiency. Two other products
were approved within twenty-four hours of the application, and a geothermal heat
pump was approved despite the fact that its claims to efficiency exceeded any
comparable product in the Energy Star database. Only four of the applicants were
asked for certification to be verified by an independent third party.
A month later, the DOE and EPA announced measures to strengthen the Energy
Star certification process. In a statement, the agencies said that “effective
immediately, manufacturers wishing to qualify their products as Energy Star must
submit complete lab reports and results for review and approval by EPA prior to
labeling. Following a thorough review of the Energy Star qualification approval
process, EPA has strengthened its approval systems and is no longer relying on
an automated approval process. All new qualification applications will be
reviewed and approved individually by EPA.”
Effective at the end of 2010, all manufacturers will be required to submit
test results from an approved, accredited lab for any product seeking the Energy
Star label.
What Can We Learn?
The message in all of this is: Consumer Beware. As we wrote in an article
about greenwashing back in the May/June 2008 issue of
Natural Life Magazine, the
fast-growing sustainability realm is no more immune to fraudulent or
inaccurate claims than any other. In fact, because green business is a growth
industry, it may be even more vulnerable to the marketing lure of false claims.
Be sure any claims made about a product are backed up by reputable
third-party testing. In its report to the U.S. government about the Energy Star
program, the GAO notes that, “Officials [from DOE and EPA] acknowledged that
currently the Energy Star program relies on self-policing, manufacturer
integrity, and after-market testing for high volume products in cases where
there is not a third-party testing requirement for certification. Our ability to
obtain product certifications with unverified test results illustrates the need
for, at a minimum, some level of third-party testing for the program to be one
of certification versus self-certification.”
Finally, especially when you’re shopping for an expensive purchase like a
house, research the specifics and don’t rely just on the certification. And, as
we’ve seen from the LEED and indoor air quality issue, don’t assume that any one
certification program or label will be perfect or will cover off your own
personal concerns. The path to sustainability is a complicated one, with many
different competing interests and many problems yet to be solved.
Learn More
Environment and Human Health LEED Study
GAO Energy Star Report
Energy Star US
Rolf Priesnitz is the founder and Publisher of Natural Life
Magazine, and has over 40 years experience in the construction industry.
|
