06
USGBC argues the need for both green building ratings and building codes - 5:42 AM
Tagged: Rating Systems
In a recent white paper entitled Greening the Codes, the USGBC discusses the need for building code systems and green building rating systems to work together to create continuous improvement, implementation, and results. Individually, each system falls short of society’s need for improvement; sharpening each other’s systems, together they are stronger.
The message of the white paper is clear: both standard building codes and green building rating systems are necessary for safe and healthy building environments:
- Building codes provide the structure that reduces risks of disasters like fire, poor construction material choices, shoddy workmanship, and other threats to human life and public safety. Increasingly, building codes are incorporating green building designs, such as energy efficiency and water conservation measures, as I’ve previously noted in my post regarding the International Green Construction Code.
- Green building rating systems form above-code goals that push conventional buildings to be more sustainable than the bare minimum through greater energy savings, water efficiency, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, improved indoor environmental quality, and stewardship of resources. They speak to human and environmental health issues not addressed by building codes through a standardized rating system that helps solve economic, energy, and environmental challenges.
The USGBC white paper argues that in many cases building codes alone won’t provide the push toward truly safe and hazard free buildings. By the same token, as I’ve discussed previously, building codes help to improve LEED standards by addressing issues such as indoor air quality.
Together, the two systems provide mutual friction for ongoing improvement. By incorporating green building practices into minimum building codes, the green building industry is then freer to “go further and faster, blazing new trails towards a truly sustainable future.” Quite right.
