History shows us that for thousands of years, man has used naturally occurring materials, such as clay, sand, reed, wood, and stone, to construct his habitat. But in addition to naturally occurring materials, man has, with the passing of time, developed and supplemented these with a variety of man-made products—some more and some less synthetic. Moreover, building materials manufacture has long been an established industry in many countries around the world, from the United States to China and Iraq, and their use is typically compartmented into specific specialty trades, such as carpentry, roofing, flooring, and plumbing.

The concept of repair and reuse of a building instead of tearing it down and building new structure is a highly effective strategy for minimizing environmental impact. And refurbishment and rehabilitation of existing building components helps minimizes any potential negative impact on the environment and saves natural resources, including the raw materials, energy, and water resources required for new construction. It also helps reduce pollution that might take place as a by-product of manufacturing, extraction, and transportation of raw materials, in addition to minimizing the creation of solid waste that often ends up in landfills.

Some states, such as North Carolina, have a Building Reuse and Restoration Grants Program that provides grants for the restoration and upfitting of vacant buildings in rural communities or in economically distressed urban areas, as well as for the expansion and renovation of buildings currently occupied by certain types of businesses. Many rating systems including the USGBC’s LEED Rating System also recognize the importance of building reuse. Reusing a building can contribute to earning points under LEED “Materials Resource Credits on Building Reuse”. Of note, according to the USGBC, project teams may pursue the entire LEED v4 Materials and Resources (MR) category in place of the MR credits from LEED v2009 but all prerequisites must be met including:

With respect to the New Construction rating system, credits MR4.1-4 relate to low-emitting materials such as adhesives and sealants, paints and coatings, flooring systems, and composite wood and agrifiber products.

Many of the environmental impacts associated with building materials have already taken place by the time the materials are installed. Pollutants are emitted during the extraction from the ground, or harvesting from forests, and during manufacture. Energy has therefore been invested throughout production. Certain materials, such as those containing ozone-depleting HCFCs and volatile organic compound (VOCs), may continue emitting pollutants during their life cycle. Some materials will also have negative environmental impacts associated with their disposal. Important considerations to bear in mind when selecting building materials and products include the following:

This credit adds new international compliance options for projects outside of North America. Moreover, project teams will now have to identify the total surface area for flooring/ceilings, walls, and insulation, and the surface area with compliant materials for each category. Of note, there are various resource-efficient products that are available at no extra charge, while others may cost more. Also, if the installation differs from standard practice, it may raise labor cost if an installer is unfamiliar with a product.

According to the Environmental Building News (BuildingGreen.com), “Recycled content refers to the portion of materials used in a product that have been diverted from the solid waste stream. If those materials are diverted during the manufacturing process, they are referred to as preconsumer recycled content (sometimes referred to as postindustrial). If they are diverted after consumer use, they are postconsumer.

Postconsumer content is generally viewed as offering greater environmental benefit than preconsumer content. Although preconsumer waste is much more vast, it is also more likely to be diverted from the waste stream. Postconsumer waste is more likely to fill limited space in municipal landfills and is typically mixed, making recovery more difficult.

To claim that it is using preconsumer recycled content, a company must be able to substantiate that the material it is using would have become garbage, had it not purchased it from another company’s waste stream, for example. If a manufacturer routinely collects scraps and feeds them back into its own process, that material does not qualify as recycled.”

Recycled content is the most widely cited attribute of green building products. The LEED intent for MR Credit 4.1 is to protect virgin resources by increasing demand for building products with recycled content.

The LEED requirements are: “Use materials with recycled content such that the sum of postconsumer recycled content plus one-half of the preconsumer content constitutes at least 10% (based on cost) of the total value of the materials in the project. The recycled content value of a material assembly shall be determined by weight. The recycled fraction of the assembly is then multiplied by the cost of assembly to determine the recycled content value.

Mechanical, electrical and plumbing components and specialty items such as elevators shall not be included in this calculation. Only include materials permanently installed in the project. Furniture may be included, providing it is included consistently in MR Credits 3–7.”

Recycled content is to be defined in accordance with the International Organization of Standards (ISO) document, ISO 14021—Environmental Labels and Declarations—Self-declared Environmental Claims (Type II Environmental Labeling). Companies claiming to use preconsumer recycled content must be able to substantiate that the material it is using would have been discarded, had it not been purchased from another company’s waste stream. However, if the manufacturer routinely collects scraps and feeds them back into its own process, that material according to LEED does not qualify as recycled.

Many federal, state, and local government agencies around the nation have established “buy recycled” programs aimed at increasing markets for recycled materials. Among these include, The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), San Mateo County, Iowa Program, Montgomery County, and others. These programs support the Department of General Services (DGS), other State agencies, as well as local governments in establishing policies and practices for purchasing recycled-content products (RCPs), in addition to supporting activities that promote waste reduction and management. Likewise, a principal goal of these programs is supporting all recycling activities to reduce solid-waste disposal, and many communities in the United States now offer regular curbside collection or drop-off sites for certain recyclable materials. Materials collection in itself, however, is insufficient toward making the recycling process work. Successful recycling also requires that manufacturers produce viable products from the recovered materials and, in turn, there is a market ready to purchase products made of recycled materials.

Recyclability is a characteristic of materials that maintain useful physical or chemical properties after serving their original purpose and which therefore allows them to be reused or remanufactured into additional products through a recognized process. In fact, many national and international companies constantly seek an environmental marketing edge by advertising the recycled content of their products, which is often undocumented or certified and often misleading. Such claims come under the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which first published definitions for common environmental terms in its Green Guides in 1992. The LEED Rating System offers credit for recycled-content materials, referencing definitions from ISO 14021. However, these definitions leave a lot of gray areas, which many manufacturers often interpret in their own favor. Third-party certification of recycled content is useful in maintaining a high standard and offering the ability to verify any claims that are made regarding sustainability.

Waste is not a luxury we can afford, although we have to bear it. Yet, the extraction, manufacture/transport, and disposal of building materials continue to clog our landfills, pollutes our air and water, deplete our resources, and damage our natural habitats. The CIWMB notes that C & D waste comprised 22% of California’s solid-waste stream in 2004. Probably, more than 85% of that material, from flooring to roofing, and much of that material can be salvaged for reuse or recycled. In addition to C & D waste, we must also consider the material in our recycling bins, our used bottles, paper, cans, and cardboard, which can provide suitable raw materials for RCPs. But keeping a material out of the landfill is only the first step to putting “waste” back into productive use. The “waste” has to be reprocessed into a new, quality product, and that product must be cable of being sold to an entity that recognizes its benefits. The reprocessing of our “waste” as the raw material for new products, increases demand for recycling, and encourages manufacturers to employ more recycled material, continuously strengthening this cycle.

The benefits of using recycled-content materials are many and include reduced pollution, reduced solid waste, reduced energy and water use, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and a healthier IAQ. Below is a partial list of materials that are readily recyclable and which generally may cost less to recycle than to dispose of as garbage:

To achieve maximum benefit when selecting a recycled-content building material, the following points should be taken into consideration:

Reclaimed wood has many applications, including, but not limited to, flooring, siding, furniture, and in some cases as structural members. Reusing wood from an existing building on site should be carefully considered, or where appropriate, look to salvage yards and on-site deconstruction sales for a portion of a project’s material needs. It is important to note that salvaging or reusing wood can reduce solid waste, save forest resources, and save money. Moreover, reclaimed wood is often available in dimensions, species, and old-growth quality that is no longer available today. Table 6.4 lists examples of Reusable (RU), recyclable (RC) and biodegradable (B) building materials.

Deconstruction consists of the systematic disassembly of a building, with the purpose of recovering valuable materials for reuse in construction, renovation, or manufacturing into new wood products, thereby preserving the useful value of its component materials. Deconstruction is preferable to demolishing; the combination of various tax breaks, new tools, and increasing local expertise are making it easier to keep materials out of the landfill. Deconstruction has grown by leaps and bounds in recent years, due mainly to new for-profit and nonprofit entities throughout the United States. Although deconstruction takes longer and may initially cost more than demolition, it is, nevertheless, likely to reduce the overall project cost. Waste reduction has the benefits of minimizing energy use, conserving resources, and easing pressure on landfill capacity.

This is why for some time now enlightened designers, building owners, and leading edge organizations have been searching for ways to reduce their environmental footprint by becoming greener, both at home and at the work place. Likewise, manufacturers of office equipment are responding to consumer desire for more environmentally sound products. One of the main driving forces behind this trend has been the ENERGY STAR program which was begun by the U.S. EPA in 1992.

Modern research shows that office equipment accounts for approximately 16% of an office’s energy use, and buildings generally contribute about 40% of U.S. CO₂ emissions, and therefore even minor changes at the office can potentially have a significant impact. And although the energy component generally represents about 30% of operating expenses in a typical office building, thereby making it the single largest and most manageable operating expense in the provision of office space, many facility operators unlike their enlightened counterparts, nevertheless, fail to focus on the energy-consuming office equipment or appliances when they consider energy consumption. Instead they unwittingly focus on building operations such as lighting and air-conditioning and its shell components.

People often do not realize that the cost of energy to operate office equipment or an appliance over time can cost substantially more than the original cost of the equipment itself. Moreover, choosing the most energy-efficient models available can have a positive impact on the environment while at the same time saving money. Nevertheless, more often than not, building owners and tenants decide to choose the cheapest and least expensive equipment or appliance on the market, which means that the owner/tenant ends up spending the minimum amount up front on an appliance or office equipment, only to find that they are paying through the nose for years to come in recurring monthly energy costs. It is also important that all nonessential electrical equipment (TVs, copiers, computers, VCRs, etc.) be switched off at night or when not in use.

It is no secret that much of the energy and water that appliances and office equipment consume promptly translates into additional fuel being burned at power plants, which in turn contributes to air pollution, and the waste of our limited natural resources. The good news is that continuous technological advances have helped create efficient new appliances and office equipment that can use only one-half to one-third as much energy as those purchased only a decade ago. The Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory reports that the replacement of older appliances and equipment such as refrigerators, dishwashers, clothes washers, thermostats, heating equipment, and incandescent lighting with ENERGY STAR equipment, enough energy and water can be saved to provide an average after tax return on investment (ROI) of over 16%. This is a substantially better return than the stock market. Moreover, in today’s era of escalating energy costs and climate change, energy efficiency has become the most important aspect of greening a business.

In the United States, most retailers carry efficient, durable appliances and office equipment. Appliances and equipment with the ENERGY STAR label are typically preferred, although they are not necessarily always the most efficient of all available models. Nevertheless, ENERGY STAR^® products do usually perform significantly better than federal minimum efficiency standards. ENERGY STAR is a label from the U.S. EPA that identifies various energy-saving products in over 60 product categories, including appliances, lighting, office equipment, and consumer electronics. According to a 2002 EPA report, ENERGY STAR–labeled office buildings generally generate utility bills that are 40% less than the average office building. In addition, there are often rebates and/or incentives for the purchase of energy- and water-saving appliances. Inefficient office equipment not only draws power but also emits heat that can contribute to higher cooling bills.

Factors that should be considered when selecting office equipment and appliances:

By using green office equipment, there is also the potential to achieve LEED credit points. For example, for existing buildings the requirements for electronics can be found in the MR 2.1 section under “Sustainable Purchasing: Durable Goods, Electric,” which states:

As for residential construction, ENERGY STAR offers homebuyers many of the features they desire in a new home, in addition to the energy-efficient improvements that deliver better performance, greater comfort, and lower utility bills. To earn the ENERGY STAR label, a home is required to meet strict guidelines for energy efficiency as set by the U.S. EPA. Such homes are typically 20 to 30% more efficient than conventional homes.

The primary purpose of forest certification is that it provides market recognition for forest producers who meet a set of agreed-upon environmental and social standards. The importance, therefore, of this certification is that it verifies that the forests are well managed, as defined by a particular standard, and ensures that certain wood and paper products come from responsibly managed forests. This is particularly important today since current forestry practices have a multitude of negative effects on the environment such as soil erosion and loss of wildlife habitat.

The Intent of the LEED Certified Wood credit here is to encourage such environmentally responsible forest-management programs. The Green Globes rating system, unlike the LEED rating system, does not have an FSC-only policy. Moreover, there has been much controversy relating to certified in the LEED Rating System and LEED encountered considerable criticism.

In response to the USGBC’s recently released new rating system LEED 2012, which took effect in 2012, the American Forest Foundation (AFF) states that while recognizing the significance of the proposed changes, it believes that the story for wood remains unchanged and the increase recognition of American Tree Farm System wood remains unchanged. AFF believes that “While wood is an energy-efficient, renewable, carbon sequestering material, LEED has done very little to promote the environmental benefits of wood or to encourage builders to choose wood products—essentially blocking wood from the growing green building market.” LEED has also been at odds with the National Lumber and Building Material Dealers Association (NLBMDA) regarding certifications. Earlier rewrites of the certified wood policy in the LEED rating systems unfortunately failed to get a two-thirds majority votes from USGBC members to become a policy. Without a two-thirds majority, the policy failed to pass under LEED rules, and the certified wood credits will remain unchanged. Melissa Harden, a Public Affairs Manager at AFF, says that, “Builders and architects can collect few credits under LEED for using wood, and the credits that are related to wood products are even more restrictive. For example, under the current LEED system, the forest certification credit does not recognize the two largest forest certification standards in North America, the American Tree Farm System and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, only wood certified by the FSC is recognized. LEED 2012 is even more restrictive in only recognizing ‘FSC Pure’ certified wood products. Very few North American wood products are certified as FSC Pure.” Harden goes on to say that “While LEED 2012 does offer some new changes with seeming potential for increased recognition of wood products, these new changes come with additional questions. For example, LEED 2012 would allow materials, like wood, to achieve recognition through performance-based Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs).” And although the LEED 2012 recognizes products that are “bio-based,” they rely on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) definition and database of BioPreferred products. USDA’s BioPreferred program currently does not include products with a mature market—therefore including the majority of paper and wood products.

The criteria for LEED certified wood credits continue to change, and it is best to be constantly updated by checking with the USGBC website. Previously, LEED awarded credit to projects that used wood certified to the standards of the FSC for at least half of their wood-based materials. The USGBC has now purportedly broadened the credit to recognize any forest-certification program that meets its criteria. The change is partly in response to criticism that LEED favors one forest-certification program, FSC, over others—in particular, the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), a rival to the FSC that is portrayed by some environmentalists as being less rigorous. Nevertheless, the revision brings the credit into line with a trend in LEED toward using transparent criteria to determine which third-party certification programs to recognize.

At present the FSC, remains the only certification program granted a “certified wood credit” in the LEED system, although LEED claims that it will recognize wood certification programs that are found to be compliant with the benchmark. On the other hand, wood certification programs that are not found to be in alignment with the benchmark would have a clear and transparent understanding of what modifications are needed to receive recognition under LEED. A number of other programs, including SFI and the Canadian Standards Association (CSA), may face some difficulty with parts of the LEED benchmark system to receive certification.

In recent years, many progressive companies have decided whenever possible to preferentially buy wood and paper from FSC-certified suppliers, although they still use products from other sources to meet their needs. According to the USGBC, homebuilders can currently earn up to 6.5 points out of a possible 136 for using FSC-certified wood. Specifically, they can earn a half point each for using FSC-certified wood in:

The SCS has emerged as a global leader in certifying forest-management operations and wood-product manufacturers. It first developed its Forest Conservation Program in 1991, and in 1996 the FSC accredited it as a certification body, enabling it to evaluate forests according to the FSC Principles and Criteria for Forest Stewardship. Through a well-developed network of regional representatives and contractors, SCS provides timely and cost-effective certification services globally. Implementation requirements to achieve the LEED credit include:

To receive the new pilot credit, LEED projects must validate that, based on value, at least 10% of nonstructural products meet any of the following requirements:

Many thought that the certified wood controversy had ended last December with USGBC’s decision to keep the FSC as the only wood that gets a point for being sustainably harvested. However, a new and very confusing controversial credit has recently been introduced that appears to get a foot in the door for other certification systems. It was recently noted in a press release from UL Environment, which does third-party certification. They explain that the credit is designed to promote use of certified products.

The recently released pilot credit will be used as a “testing ground” or “trial run” credit before its formal adoption into the LEED rating system. This new pilot credit is important to the sustainable building community because certified products provide a mechanism for market transformation as it awards points for improving performance, transparency, and evaluation of the environmental impact of products and materials. The President of UL Environment, Steve Wenc, echoes this, “This move toward increased performance, transparency, authenticity and third-party verification of manufacturers’ claims will help transform the market.” We have yet to see if it does.

Moving the administration of the LEED certification process to the Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI), a nonprofit organization established in 2007 with the support of USGBC, was a wise decision and is having far-reaching positive ramifications for the USGBC and its influential LEED rating systems. Working together with the selected certification bodies, GBCI is now in a better position to deliver a substantially improved, ISO-compliant certification process that will continue to grow with the green building movement.

USGBC has decided to outsource LEED certification to independent, accredited certifiers overseen by GBCI. In that respect, the USGBC’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) v3 has announced the names of the certification bodies for the updated LEED Green Building Rating System. The companies are well known and respected for their role in certifying organizations, processes, and products to ISO and other standards. A list of the members can be found in Chapter 2, Section 2.3.5. This development in the certification process has been undertaken as an integrated part of a major update to the technical rating system that was put in place as LEED 2009. The update will also include a comprehensive technology upgrade to LEED Online aimed at improving the user experience and expanding its portfolio-management capabilities.

To acquire LEED credits, third-party testing and certification are required, so as to provide an independent analysis of manufacturers’ environmental performance claims, based upon established standards. This provides building owners and operators with the tools required to have an immediate and measurable impact on their buildings’ performance. Sustainable building strategies should be considered early in the development cycle. An integrated project team will include the major stakeholders of the project, such as the developer/owner, asset and property-management staff, BIM manager, architect, engineer, contractor, and landscape architect.

Making choices based on third-party analysis is often easier than LCA, but it is vitally important to determine the independence, credibility, and testing protocols of the third-party certifiers. Michelle Moore, senior vice president of policy and public affairs at USGBC, says, “We believe in third-party certification,” and “the USGBC provides independent third-party verification to ensure that a building meets these high performance standards. As part of this process, USGBC requires technically rigorous documentation that includes information such as project drawings and renderings, product manufacturer specifications, energy calculations, and actual utility bills. This process is facilitated through a comprehensive online system that guides project teams through the certification process. All certification submittals are audited by third-party reviewers.” Moore also believes that the separation of LEED from the certification process will bring LEED into alignment with norms established by the ISO for certification programs.

For healthy IAQ, green-building materials and methods should typically have zero or low emissions of toxic or irritating chemicals and be moisture, and should also be mold resistant. Green materials and products are typically manufactured with a low-pollution process from nontoxic components, have low maintenance requirements, and do not require the use of toxic cleansers. This may explain why most green materials do not emit VOCs, particularly indoors, and are free of toxic materials such as chlorine, lead, mercury, and arsenic. While individual products do not carry LEED points, they can, nevertheless, contribute to LEED points. Green-building strategies include the monitoring of indoor pollutants and poor ventilation through the use of radon and carbon monoxide detectors. The use of ozone-depleting gases such as halons and HCFCs are to be avoided.