There's the fact that many LEED certified buildings are less energy efficient than other buildings, even after spending hundreds of thousands or more to get their LEED certification[1][2].
There's even a LEED Exposed website dedicated to calling out their organization[3]. Primarily, the fact that they are a non-government organization whose rules many governments say buildings must follow.
There's lots of reasons to be suspicious of LEED, and I'd love to hear counter-arguments.
[0] http://www.usgbc.org/help/will-my-project-be-decertified-if-... [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/04/30/leed-certif... [2]http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/exography-worst-of-the-wor... [3]http://www.leedexposed.com/what-is-leed/
"LEED Exposed" is run by the Environmental Policy Alliance[1], which is "devoted to uncovering the funding and hidden agendas behind environmental activist groups."
It looks like the Environmental Policy Alliance is a shell organization run by Berman & Co.[2][3], a PR firm for everybody's favorite lineup of corporate bad guys: cigarettes, soda and fast food, and (presumably) some company that benefits from lessened pressure for environmental design.
The Forbes source you gave is written by someone at Berman & Company.
I don't want to make any particular claims about LEED or the USGBC, because I just don't know enough about them. However, the origins of the criticisms against them suggest that there's more at play than just LEED being a bad or ineffective standard.
[1]: http://environmentalpolicyalliance.org/
[2]: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Environmental_Policy_Al...
I think overall, I'd prefer to see proper government regulated standards. The EPA's energy star stuff has worked pretty well at enforcing home appliances meet certain criteria for efficiency.
There needs to be some bite behind these rules, and not just good intentions.
That being said, Berman & Co. (or any number of opaque lobbying firms) don't stop at LEED - it's just low hanging fruit. They're also running "EPA Facts" [1], "Green Decoys" [2], and so forth.
My worry is that with LEED out of the way, the EPA's replacement will become the new target. With Scott Pruitt in charge, that may be easier than ever.
Can you provide sources to the contrary? I'd rather admit to being wrong and then become right than go around sounding like I know shit when I don't.
(My main source is my wife, who's a civil engineer for the city approving building construction. She has strong opinions on LEED because she's had to approve buildings that met city standards but basically fucked off with their LEED promises).