Last week, the Illinois state Senate voted 52-5 to mandate green cleaning in the state’s schools. While seemingly innocuous on its own, this law is emblematic of a much more widespread trend: State and city governments forcing publicly funded, and in some cases, even private developments, to go green.
Is this a good thing or bad thing? Arguments can certainly be made both ways. One argument against these green building laws is that LEED, as the de facto basis for cities’ green building standards, is being misused. The problem, as decriers of green legislation see it, is that LEED was designed as a voluntary rating system and was never intended to be used as an actual building code. What’s more, many cities have passed a watered-down version of LEED, a practice that makes even USGBC a bit uncomfortable. Will LEED maintain its intent?
In most cases, LEED, or its "edited" versions, have been limited to governing public or government buildings. Recently, however, Boston announced and Washington D.C. implemented plans to make LEED mandatory, even on private buildings. Advocates of small government (Republicans?) don’t like this one bit.
On the other side of the coin are those that couldn’t be more delighted about the implementation of strict green building laws. The arguments for such legislation, from an environmental point of view, are probably familiar: Lowering energy use, mitigating urban heat islands, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, conserving natural resources, etc. There’s also the argument – used by many of the “ayes” in the Illinois Senate – that green buildings are healthier places to live, work and go to school. And if green buildings can be built without a cost premium, as more and more facility executives are reporting all the time, green building becomes as close to a no-brainer as the Illinois Senate seemed to think.