Lost in Credits

I find it interesting to listen to manufacturers representatives talk about LEED and how many points their products can bring a project. We had a presentation this week that included a powerpoint slide that said that a chair would give the project 4.5 points. Now, it was not hard to figure out that perhaps it meant that the chair could contribute to credit 4.5 but that is definitely not what was written in the powerpoint or spoken by the rep. When I challenged the rep about the content, I was told that this was the information they sent from the factory and that was that. Hmm. How misleading and misguided.

Products do not bring credits or points to a project.

Products can help to contribute to points but it is not really the product itself, it is the content or the performance of the product that figures into the overall intention. It seems that the easy way out is to make sure you say your company has green products, say the product can give you points and then hope that no one asks you any more questions. The sad part of that is at least twofold. One, whatever happened to learning something new? What harm is there in learning what LEED is and how it works conceptually? Secondly, when we are part of a project team moving through the LEED process, we need a boatload of technical support, quickly. The information is getting more accessible but it is still tough to get everything you need. Some brands actually have their product information spelled out really well where others are just starting to realize that LEED is not going away and they have to jump on board.

There are no points for "cradle to cradle".

There are no points for a Greenguard product - there is a point in LEED- CI (EQ 4.5) that requires "all systems furniture and seating introduced into the project space that has been manufactured, refurbished or refinished within one year prior to occupancy must meet one of the requirements below - Option A - Greenguard Indoor Air Quality Certified, Option B - calculation of indoor air concentrations....
Systems furniture is defined as panel based or desking based products, Seating is defined as task and guest chairs used with systems furniture. All other furniture is excluded from the point.

There are no points for recycled content in furniture - there is a point in LEED-CI (MR4.1) that requires use of recycled content within products that constitutes at least 10% of the total value of the materials in the project. This is a calculation that is taken using all materials, including division 12 ( furniture and furnishings), on the project. You cannot just relate one chair that has recycled post-consumer content to this point, it is a compilation of many ingredients.

It just seems trendy to talk about how many points you can get using certain things and that could not be farther from the truth.

We have all heard the word sustainable over and over and over again in the last couple of years. Sustainability is a characteristic of a process or state that can be maintained at a certain level indefinitely. It has been applied to the environment and is now being used as a synonym for green or LEED. Clearly, these three words mean different things but they are interchanged when used in the environmental conversations.

Sustainable to me means quality. It is not about LEED and it is not always about green. It is about longevity. Or, according to Wikipedia, quality is non-inferiority, superiority or usefulness of something. A sustainable product would then mean that it is a quality product, superior or non-inferior product, and potentially re-usable.

Investing in better quality is a more sustainable practice. I find it equally as interesting that quality does not always mean more expensive. You don't have to go far to pick out a ton of things that are high quality and not high price. The first one that comes to mind is almost every product at Trader Joe's. Very high quality, usually a lot less expensive than other brands and ironically, often environmentally sound.

There is a lot of press about the cost of sustainability. I certainly understand that some sustainable practices cost more than non-sustainable practices. But when you look at overall quality and what you are evaluating, is it really more costly?