Unfortunately, however, I don’t know that NESEA has done a good enough job at getting the word out about themselves as a whole (members/research/energy-efficient building etc) whereas USGBC has. I attended NESEA in 2006 and found it the best conference I’ve attended on sustainable design (yes, far better than GreenBuild). The information from each seminar was loaded with good, solid practical information. The speakers are some of the gurus of energy-efficient design -and I don’t say this lightly at all; these folks are worth their salt and then some. But honestly, at the same time, you don’t hear much about NESEA day-to-day, whereas you sure hear alot about USGBC and LEED. Why is this?

USGBC has done an amazing job at marketing and embracing and teaching green design -even if admittedly, it’s not perfect. But they have taken a crack at it at a much bigger level then NESEA has and are indeed, working towards changing the market place. Perhaps NESEA hasn’t been as dominant with marketing because the organization is more regional, being that it is the Northeast Sustainable Energy Association? I don’t know for sure, but I also don’t think that’s entirely the issue.

I read Gifford’s paper when it first came out and was happy to see him take USGBC to task on its findings. At the same time, I was disheartened to learn that the findings published by USGBC had been, well, tinkered with so that report said what they wanted it to say, rather than laying out the facts. I was also however, not surprised to learn this either, quite frankly. I do think it’s crazy that we reward a building beased on a model rather than actual performance data based on two years of operation, as Gifford suggests. To boot, we keep building all these green buildings that look sexy but are not durable material wise/envelope system wise, nor are they energy-efficient, again starting with their building envelope. It pains me to see glass buildings with an R-value of about R-3 or R-4 being touted as sustainable. It’s an energy hog. Period.

At the same time however, I don’t agree with Chris Benedict’s statement -and she is an architect whom I have great respect for, that “[she] would like LEED to go away, and [she] would like the USGBC to disappear from the face of the earth.” Although she is correct in stating that anyone with LEED AP after their name is now seemingly seen as the expert, versus those who have been deep within energy-efficient design for years, it is not fair to cast LEED or USGBC off as being completely incompetent, which is what I infer from this statement. The organization is not by any means, and is working each day against a lot of odds towards building a better built environment. Are they perfect? Again, no. I have several problems with the rating system. But again, they are trying at a much broader level than I see NESEA doing.

The basic fact is, USGBC has a huge amount to learn from NESEA and NESEA has a huge amount to learn from USGBC. Put these two factions in a room together for a while and I have little doubt that the ensuing rating system developed would far exceed any we’ve seen thus far from USGBC. Yet from this exchange, I feel that NESEA acted more like a toddler having a temper tantrum than someone willing to come together. USGBC seemed able to stand up and admit some faults on the other hand. That doesn’t make the USGBC stupid/wrong nor does it make NESEA superior/right. Pointing fingers doesn’t get anyone anywhere, and right now, we have a gluttoness built environment to deal with. We need everyone to play on the same team. Marc Rosenbaum said it best in his comment that there weren’t many solutions discussed, and that it was mostly a rant. Well, now that the ranting’s over, let’s work together.