LEED CoreConcepts&Strategies_3rd edition - Page 011
Extracted Content
THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF CONVENTIONAL PRACTICES IN THE BUILDING INDUSTRY HAS PROFOUND IMPLICATIONS FOR HUMAN HEALTH, THE ENVIRONMENT, AND THE ECONOMY:
•• Clearing of land for development often destroys wildlife habitat
•• Extracting, manufacturing, and transporting materials may pollute water and air, release toxic chemicals, and emit greenhouse gases
•• Building operations require large inputs of energy and water and generate substantial waste streams
•• Transportation to and from buildings by commuters and service providers compounds the harmful environmental effects associated with vehicle use, such as increased energy consumption and pollution
By building green, we can reduce that environmental damage. In many cases, green buildings can even enhance the health of the environment and the people who use them.
A study by the New Buildings Institute found that in green buildings, average energy use intensities (energy consumed per unit of floor space) are 24% lower than in typical buildings. [4] Additionally, the U.S. General Services Administration surveyed 12 green buildings in its portfolio and found these savings and improvements:
•• 26% less energy usage
•• 27% higher levels of occupant satisfaction
•• 13% lower maintenance costs
•• 33% lower emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) [5]
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
ENERGY USE INTENSITY (kBtu/sf/yr)
Figure 1.1. Energy Use Intensities for Sustainably Designed U.S. Government Buildings (Source: GSA 2008) The dotted line indicates the national average energy use intensity.
4 Turner, C. & Frankel, Energy Performance of LEED® for New Construction Buildings (2008), newbuildings.org/sites/default/files/Energy_Performance_of_LEED-NC_Buildings-Final_3-4-08b.pdf. 5 Public Buildings Service, “Assessing Green Building Performance: A Post Occupancy Evaluation of 12 GSA Buildings” (General Services Administration, 2008), gsa.gov/graphics/pbs/GSA_Assessing_Green_Full_Report.pdf.
4
