This post was written by our of our industry insiders, Sarah Jazmine Fugate who has just moved to New York from Boston and will be writing about her experiences in the green building industry for GLD NYC.

Recently, Frank Gehry–one of the most recognizable names in architecture—launched an attack on LEED certification of buildings, calling the process bogus and political.   Whether one loves or hates Frank Gehry’s work, he has undeniably earned the status of a leader in design.  The juxtaposition of Frank Gehry’s personage and the LEED rating system in my mind made me start thinking about the “L for Leadership” in LEED.

Most architects and green builders would tend to agree that some of the credits awarded in the LEED system are purely political–creating new markets for particular materials, for example.  The LEED credit systems also seem to create opportunities for buildings with unimpressive energy ratings to be included by making up for low EA (Energy and Atmosphere) scores through softer, fuzzier credit categories.  The USGBC’s defends their system—saying LEED is meant to include and encourage, not exclude or be so demanding as to be inaccessible.     Accessibility is a laudable goal in an industry as change-averse as the building industry, especially if LEED envisions itself as the first step toward a comprehensive green building code.  If becoming a part of the code is the future of LEED, then the “L for Leadership” will of course have to go away, because leaders, by definition, do more than simply follow the rules.

If, however, LEED imagines itself as a more lasting system of optional actions with intangible rewards of marketing through the LEED brand and no punishment for opting out, then is “Leadership” really the right word when the system is made to be as inclusive as possible?

Could a parallel be drawn between No Child Left Behind and LEED?  Are we trying so hard to encourage mediocre buildings to be a little better that we’re failing to distinguish and celebrate truly exceptional performance which might actually stand a chance of halting environmental destruction?   Why is no one stating the obvious—that every building activity that is not energy neutral is a step (however small) in the wrong direction?  To what extent do the different tiers in the LEED rating system distinguish true platinum-dipped leaders from half-hearted certified-only followers?

Frank Gehry, for his part, has an obvious stake in belittling the green building movement because his buildings for the most part fall short if measured for energy and material efficiency.  Still, I think he might, at this late stage in his career with a name and legacy already established, be again acting as a leader by reminding us that making buildings that way we currently make them is a gesture of environmental consumption—one that he implicitly accepts through the body of work he has produced.  What does radical design leadership look like if it doesn’t accept environmental consumption/destruction as one of its premises/side effects?

Here are some designers who think they might know; Philippe Rahm, Terreform ONE, William McDonough.

From Brian Hayden, on our industry insiders.

There’s going to be a Green Jobs backlash.  There…I said it. The manufacturing plant that closed up the road can’t be re-tooled over the course of eighteen months to magically employ the same number of people doing mythical ‘green’ things.  Promising this to a community or a person that has been laid off is a recipe for disappointment and resentment and I expect some of those unrealistic promises will come back to bite people who made big promises.  That’s the bad news – take some time to mourn the loss if you need it.

Once we get over that fact, we can move on to the good news: companies are hiring and there are more opportunities in renewables and energy efficiency than ever.  The Great Recession that we’re either emerging from or still buried in has caused an subtle paradigm shift in employment in the construction industry that is not that complicated to understand once you see it.  Consumer preferences are changing but companies are risk adverse, so there’s more contract work, lots of temporary positions, and entrepreneurship is a necessary option sometimes.  The opportunities are there, they just aren’t packaged with a corner office and a pension.

I know many people who have gotten green jobs and there will be many, many more in the months and years ahead.  So lets not let the inevitable Green Jobs backlash distract us from the exciting changes that are slowly but surely taking place.

Last week, I wrote about how Building Efficiency will be BIGGER than the Solar Industry in Massachusetts, this is a follow up to my original post.

With huge money flowing through ‘Cash for Caulkers’ (or HomeStar), Massachusetts DOER, and the utility companies to promote building efficiency, we should have a huge reduction in energy consumption and lots of new jobs soon, right?  Right?

Maybe.

Phil Giudice, Commissioner of MA DOER said that policy makers on the state and federal level are worried about the scalability of this massive national effort.  As he put it, “there is a tremendous amount of building science that goes into basic weatherization projects.”  It takes years to develop the craftsmanship and skill it takes to become a great building performance contractor.  There are a finite number of people qualified to do this work, and right now that number isn’t big enough.

But it’s not just the contractors.  Homeowners and building owners need to be motivated to participate.  The early adopters have already raised their hands – now we’re trying to convert the masses and it’s going to take a herculean effort to educate this enormous group.

So here are the two questions everyone is dying to answer:

1. How do we motivate building owners (both residential & commercial) to invest their time and energy into making their building more efficient?
2. How can we make sure the money we spend on building efficiency pays off?

I’d love to hear thoughtful responses to these questions…

On January 8th I attended a Breakfast Meeting at Foley Hoag with Phil Giudice, Commissioner of the Massachusset’s Department of Energy Resources (DOER).  It was a dynamite presentation that touched on smart grid, solar, biomass, and a variety of other interesting topics -  but the thing that dominated the conversation was this: there’s a tsunami of state and federal funds coming available for building efficiency in 2010.  As Phil said, “the money is there and the team is in place – it’s time to have our WOW moment.”  $650 million will be spent by the state to promote energy efficiency in each of the next three years (solar photovoltaic incentives through the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center will be about $12M this year and that will create 30% growth for the solar industry in Massachusetts).  That’s compared to $150 million in 2008, and doesn’t include incentives offered by the utilities.  These numbers could get bigger as the federal ‘Cash For Caulkers’ program details come into focus.

So What?

Policy conversations about climate change, energy independence, and job creation are all converging on this single initiative.  The pieces are in place for a huge amount of money to flow through the building efficiency value chain and there are still plenty of holes to be filled.  Somebody has to execute and make all of this happen.  If you have an interest in building efficiency there may never be a better time to get actively involved.