It has a long, complicated and I dare say, a cloudy history; perhaps “muddy” would be a more apt adjective, as there was a lot of mud-slinging ca. 2004, 2005 +/- when it came out. Unlike the USGBC which is made up of rep’s from ALL potentially-interested groups (i.e. architects, engineers, manufacturers, etc. etc), Green Globes is an amalgam of manufacturers, who came out swinging at the USGBC with their big bucks members from the logging industry and the vinyl industry. It kind of turned me off and I’ve never looked at them seriously since.
From a 10-min. search just now, below are three maybe-helpful write-ups (and more than you want to know):
1. Wikipedia definitions of “Green Globe” and “Green Globes” (NOT to be confused!)
2. A search of comments posted to LEEDUser, that I subscribe to
3. A search for analysis on Environmental Building News, that I subscribe to
Part 1 - Wikipedia def’s of Green Globes and Green Globe
Green Globes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not to be confused with Green Globe.
Green Globes is an environmental assessment, education and rating system that is promoted in the United States by the Green Building Initiative, a Portland, Oregon-based non-profit.
Canada’s federal government has been using the Green Globes suite of tools for several years under the Green Globes name and it has been the basis for the Building Owners and Manufacturer's Associationof Canada’s Go Green Plus program. Adopted by Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) Canada in 2004, Go Green Plus was chosen by Canada’s Department of Public Works and Government Services, which has an estimated 300 buildings in its existing portfolio.
The system, which is an online interactive software tool, competes with the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) system from the U.S. Green Building Council (another non-profit based in Washington, DC).
Green Globes helps both with the new construction of commercial buildings and with the maintenance and improvement of existing buildings
Green Globe
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article needs additional citations for verif
|
Green Globe is based on Agenda 21 principles[1] for Sustainable Development endorsed by 182 Heads of State at the United Nations Rio De Janeiro Earth Summit (1992). Green Globe Certification delivers worldwide certification services and standards to the travel & tourism as well as hospitality industry and relevant supply chain. More detailed information can be found at www.greenglobe.com
[edit]Brief history
Green Globe is based upon the Agenda 21 Plan which was originally endorsed by 182 heads of state at the Rio Earth Summit of 1992 and provided a set of principles for local, state, national and international action on sustainable development. This resulted in Agenda 21 for the Travel and Tourism Industry: Towards Environmentally Sustainable Development, which listed an action plan for a number of overall objectives for the industry.
The Green Globe Certification Standard consists of 41 criteria and 337 indicators (www.greenglobe.com/standard). The main areas are:
§ Sustainable Management (Implement a Sustainability Management System, Legal Compliance, Employee Training, Customer Satisfaction, Accuracy of Promotional Materials, Local Zoning, Interpretation, Communications Strategy, Health & Safety)
§ Social / Economic (Community Development, Local Employment, Fair Trade, Support Local Entrepreneurs, Respect Local Communities, Exploitation, Equitable Hiring, Employee Protection, Basic Services)
§ Cultural Heritage (Code of Behavior, Historical Artifacts, Protection of Sites, Incorporation of Culture)
§ Environmental (Conserving Resources, Reducing Pollution, Conserving Biodiversity, Ecosystems and Landscapes)
In 1994,[2] The World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC), which owns 5% of Green Globe International, initiated the Green Globe program with the aim of providing guidance materials and support for industry members undertaking activities to achieve sustainability outcomes in the Agenda 21 target areas.
The program was expanded in 1999 with the introduction of the Green Globe Standard, developed with assistance from the Sustainable Tourism CRC and commencement of independent auditing.
The Green Globe brand is owned by Green Globe Ltd., a UK-based company and is licensed to Green Globe Certification.
Green Globe Certification developed their own Green Globe Standard (criteria and indicators) as well as the web-based certification system. Certifications are delivered in 7 languages: English, German, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch and Chinese. Green Globe accredited auditors and consultants deliver certification services in an additional 20 languages.
Part 2 - three postings from “LEEDUser”
* A troubled history
In terms of negatives users should be aware of, I find the origins of Green globes quite troubling. The original system was launched as a competitor to LEED, although it was actually was very similar to LEED, with over 80% of the credits (by my count) being copied from LEED. One of the most notable differences was that the credits for certified wood put SFI and other industry-sponsored forest certification schemes on an equal footing with FSC, which was developed in partnership with the environmental community. (LEED has only accepted FSC, which is the higher environmental standard.) In fact, Green Globes was originally supported by only two major players: American Forest & Plywood Association (who also wrote the SFI forestry standard), and National Association of Homebuilders (representing AFPA's biggest customers). Neither organization has environmental credibility. As I see it, after AFPA launched SFI to compete with FSC, it launched Green Globes to compete with LEED. This is a classic "greenwashing" tactic -- to confuse the marketplace by introducing bogus competing certifications.
The authors defend this practice by claiming that the green building sector benefits from more choice among certification standards. I think that's a poor argument. We don't need competing standards to the national Organic standard for food -- but what we get from industry are attempts to pressure the National Organic Standards Board to lower their standards and misleading claims of "natural" foods (which is an unregulated term) to confuse the marketplace. In the building arena, we don't need competing building codes; we need a clear standard for the protection of life safety. Nor will competing standards for green help the building industry to educate our clients and partners who have less time to learn about the environmental impacts of our industry than we do. When planning for long-term sustainability and environmental protection, we need clear standards with a high bar, not a dubious competition. The forest industry couldn't get SFI accepted by LEED (although they are still trying), so they set up this dubious competitor.
In a recent LEED EBO&M project I undertook for a large commercial office tower one of the tenants was a forestry company that objected to the property management using LEED as their standard as they would have preferred Green Globes. Their objection was based purely on the forest standards used by the two rating systems, which account for 1-2% of the total content. To me that indicated that Green Globes is still very much a creature of the forestry industry. I think that potential Green Globes users should be aware of the lack of credibility that the rating system has within the environmental community.
* LEED vs. Green Globes
We're always looking for things that compare LEED to Green Globes so that we can address these issues with our clients. Here is a short internal summary we put together with resources from leeduser. Comments?
LEED versus Green Globes (http://www.leeduser.com/
• As a tool, Green Globes is fine. As a rating system it doesn’t have enough transparency, standardization, or minimum standards. It does highlight LEED’s shortcomings. I'd rather have LEED that is intended to create and maintain a standard of quality that responds to these needs rather than a Green Globes whose intention is to provide an easier way to certification without upholding the substance.
Problems with LEED:
• Needs to be more responsive to project specifics.
• Needs more flexibility.
• Needs a better online system.
• Needs better response time and consistency among reviewers.
• As a tool, Green Globes is fine. As a rating system it doesn’t have enough transparency, standardization, or minimum standards. It does highlight LEED’s shortcomings. I'd rather have LEED that is intended to create and maintain a standard of quality that responds to these needs rather than a Green Globes whose intention is to provide an easier way to certification without upholding the substance.
Problems with LEED:
• Needs to be more responsive to project specifics.
• Needs more flexibility.
• Needs a better online system.
• Needs better response time and consistency among reviewers.
Problems with Green Globes:
• The main issue, to me, is the scoring of those subjective issues like space use optimization (and many many more) where a team can say, "yeah, we're doing that" and the reviewer can say "well, ok," without any of the transparency as to what thresholds have been met.
• No prerequisites in Green Globes
o Does not require minimum performance.
o There are no prerequisites, so a building could provide no outdoor air, for example, make all the occupants sick and die, and still be certified.
• Little transparency in Green Globes
o When I hold up a LEED scorecard, I'm like a doctor reading a patient's chart. I know what's going on in the building, what they achieved, what they didn't, and I can usually find the associated strategies by looking around said patient-building. But with Green Globes, there is no "checklist" to see. Or rather, it's damn hard to get a hold of one unless you have a project in the works. It is therefore really hard to know what's weighted highly, what specific measures they are looking for, etc. This again falls into the lack of transparency trap, which for me is one of the program’s biggest failings to date.
• Green Globes uses Target Finder instead of Energy Model
o Also, I'm not sure I think that using Target Finder for to score a project’s energy performance is a good idea. I could be sold on this point, but I'm on the fence. Our use of Target Finder on New Construction projects has provided a rough sense of where a project should end up, but it seems a bit arbitrary. Plus, you miss out on the use of energy modeling as a way to explore options and encourage learning of the relative value of one energy-saving measure versus another (note: in talking to Green Globes representatives, I got the impression that one could use energy modeling as an alternative compliance path, and that almost any energy model would do (yikes!), but again, there is so little transparency that one has to really hustle to try to get any info
• The main issue, to me, is the scoring of those subjective issues like space use optimization (and many many more) where a team can say, "yeah, we're doing that" and the reviewer can say "well, ok," without any of the transparency as to what thresholds have been met.
• No prerequisites in Green Globes
o Does not require minimum performance.
o There are no prerequisites, so a building could provide no outdoor air, for example, make all the occupants sick and die, and still be certified.
• Little transparency in Green Globes
o When I hold up a LEED scorecard, I'm like a doctor reading a patient's chart. I know what's going on in the building, what they achieved, what they didn't, and I can usually find the associated strategies by looking around said patient-building. But with Green Globes, there is no "checklist" to see. Or rather, it's damn hard to get a hold of one unless you have a project in the works. It is therefore really hard to know what's weighted highly, what specific measures they are looking for, etc. This again falls into the lack of transparency trap, which for me is one of the program’s biggest failings to date.
• Green Globes uses Target Finder instead of Energy Model
o Also, I'm not sure I think that using Target Finder for to score a project’s energy performance is a good idea. I could be sold on this point, but I'm on the fence. Our use of Target Finder on New Construction projects has provided a rough sense of where a project should end up, but it seems a bit arbitrary. Plus, you miss out on the use of energy modeling as a way to explore options and encourage learning of the relative value of one energy-saving measure versus another (note: in talking to Green Globes representatives, I got the impression that one could use energy modeling as an alternative compliance path, and that almost any energy model would do (yikes!), but again, there is so little transparency that one has to really hustle to try to get any info
* Green Globes
Considering that in 2008 Jones Lang LaSalle acquired ECD ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT CANADA LTD, who developed Green Globes. ... I think there are inherent conflicts of using a rating system owned by a private management company; especially if you client is not JLL. Just though I would put this out there for all to be aware of before considering using Green Globes.
Part 3 - a 2005 write-up on Green Globes from my favorite resource
(BuildingGreen.com/ Environmental Building News)
(BuildingGreen.com/ Environmental Building News)
What's Happening from Environmental Building News
Green Globes Emerges to Challenge LEED
A Web-based green building performance tool from Canada, Green GlobesTM, is being introduced to the U.S. market as an alternative to the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED® Rating System. The Green Building Initiative (GBI), established to promote the use of the National Association of Homebuilders’ (NAHB) Model Green Home Building Guidelines (see EBN Vol. 14, No. 2), has expanded into the nonresidential building market by licensing Green Globes for use in the U.S. GBI is supported by the Wood Promotion Network and a number of other industry groups that object to some provisions in LEED and, as trade associations, are not allowed to join the U.S. Green Building Council (see EBN Vol. 13, No. 6).
Released in Canada in January 2002, Green Globes consists of a series of questionnaires, customized by project phase and the role of the user in the design team (for example, architect, mechanical engineer, or landscape architect). A total of eight design phases are supported. A separate Green Globes model, for assessing the performance of existing buildings, has not been licensed into the U.S. yet. The questionnaires produce design guidance appropriate to each team member and project phase.
Distribution of Points in Green Globes
Green Globes generates numerical assessment scores at two of the eight project phases—schematic design and construction documents. These scores can be used as self-assessments internally, or they can be verified by third-party certifiers. Projects that have had their scores independently verified can use the Green Globes logo and brand to tout their environmental performance. The Green Globes questionnaire corresponds to a checklist with a total of 1,000 points listed in seven categories (see pie chart).
Unlike LEED, however, Green Globes does not hold projects accountable for strategies that are not applicable, so the actual number of points available varies by project. For example, points are available for designing exterior lighting to avoid glare and skyglow, but for a project with no exterior lighting, a user can select “N/A,” which removes those points from the total number available so as not to penalize the project. The same approach is taken with reuse of existing buildings—points are granted when a building is reused, but an entirely new project is not penalized in Green Globes to the extent that it can be in LEED.
Projects are assigned a rating of one or more Green Globes based on the percentage of applicable points they have achieved. In Canada the ratings range from one to five Green Globes, while in the U.S. the lowest rating was eliminated and the rest adjusted so that the highest rating is four Globes (see bar chart). “Our objective in doing that was to have something that people are accustomed to—a four-stage system,” notes Ward Hubbell, executive director of GBI. “The levels are roughly comparable with the four levels of LEED,” he adds.
In terms of technical content, Green Globes is broader than LEED, including points for issues such as optimized use of space, acoustical comfort, and an integrated design process. It is much harder to compare the levels of achievement needed to claim points in the two systems, not only because they are organized differently but also because the precise requirements within Green Globes are not publicly available. The industry groups supporting GBI in the U.S. no doubt were attracted in part because Green Globes recognizes all the mainstream forest certification systems, while LEED references only the Forest Stewardship Council’s program. Green Globes also awards points for the use of life-cycle assessment methods in product selection, although it doesn’t specify how those methods should be used.
Regarding the overall achievement levels, Hubbell claims that Green Globes is on a par with LEED. “We did carry out a harmonization exercise with LEED—not credit-by-credit; we compared objectives.” No substantive changes were introduced in the U.S. adaptation of Green Globes, according to Hubbell. Instead, the tool was modified for the U.S. market by referencing U.S. rather than Canadian standards and regulations, converting metric units to inch-pound units, and tying into tools such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Target Finder (see EBN Vol. 11, No. 11).
Green Globes supporters resisted the introduction of LEED into Canada, and lost a close vote in a committee of the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada that led the creation of the Canada Green Building Council. Not surprisingly, Alex Zimmerman, president of CaGBC, has some criticisms of Green Globes. “It’s a useful tool, but I don’t see it as a rating system with independent third-party assessment,” Zimmerman says, noting that in Canada Jiri Skopek, president of ECD Energy and Environment Canada, has been the primary developer of Green Globes and in the past was its sole certifier. “While there are more certifiers now, it is not clear who they are, how they were chosen, or who they are answerable to,” Zimmerman added.
GBI aims to address that problem in the U.S. by training a network of independent certifiers to verify Green Globes ratings. These certifiers will have access to the report generated by the Green Globes website, according to Skopek, as well as additional information such as the project drawings, specifications, results of an energy simulation, and commissioning plan. “We understand that there are ways in any certification program to game the system,” says Hubbell, adding: “We go as far as USGBC goes to ensure that what we get from these certifications is valid.”
Zimmerman’s other major concern is the lack of transparency in the creation and modification of the tool. “How do you decide what has gone into it?” Zimmerman asks. “As we know with LEED, there are a lot of objections, but it is a process that is relatively transparent and open to scrutiny,” he adds. “Green Globes is a bit of a black box right now,” Skopek admitted to EBN. But that will change, he says, noting that GBI is currently recruiting members for an advisory board to help direct the product’s evolution, at least in the U.S.
The 80,000 ft2 (7,400 m2) Integrated Learning Centre at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, received a four-leaf rating through the BREEAM/Green Leaf program, which is now accessible online as Green Globes. Designed by B+H Architects of Toronto, the project was completed in 2004. The Ottawa-based firm Green & Gold, Inc., implemented the BREEAM/Green Leaf program for the ILC and helped integrate the building analysis tool into the design process. The lighting, ventilation, and water distribution systems, in particular, contributed to the building’s high rating.
Green Globes is an outgrowth of the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM), which was developed in the U.K. One of BREEAM’s creators, ECD Consultants, Ltd. (through its sister organization, ECD Energy and Environment Canada, Ltd.), used it as the basis for a Canadian assessment method called BREEAM Green Leaf. BREEAM Green Leaf was initially created to allow building owners and managers to self-assess the performance of their existing buildings. ECD then created Green Globes as a Web-based application of Green Leaf.
A 2003 Canadian government policy that has not yet been formally adopted recommends BREEAM Green Globes for any project with a budget between one million and ten million dollars (Canadian), and LEED for any project costing over $10 million. The rationale for this policy, according to H. Craig Boyle, sustainable design specialist in the Real Property Branch of Public Works and Government Services Canada, is twofold: First, larger projects can more easily support the cost of documentation and certification that LEED requires, and, second, bigger-budget projects tend to entail new construction, where LEED is stronger, while smaller projects are mostly renovations and tenant fit-outs. “Green Globes is seen as more adaptable to those sorts of applications,” says Boyle. In the private sector, the Building Owners and Managers Association of Canada (BOMA Canada) uses Green Globes in its annual Earth Awards program.
Using the U.S. version of Green Globes costs $500 per self-assessment. (The Canadian version, at $250 Canadian per project, is significantly cheaper.) Multiple members of a project team can use the tool based on that single registration. The cost of a third-party certification has not yet been determined, but GBI expects that it will range from $1,500 to $3,000, depending on the size and complexity of the project. The Web-based tool is available for use now, and GBI plans on having certifiers trained and ready by the end of March 2005.
Because Green Globes does not favor FSC over SFI forest certification, it has been advanced as a green certification system in areas with strong timber-industry lobbying presence. Legislation to encourage green building in Arkansas, Virginia, and a number of other states is likely to include Green Globes in addition to—or in place of—LEED. The Department of the Interior and some other federal agencies are also reportedly considering an endorsement of Green Globes.
As the first serious competitor to LEED in the U.S., Green Globes has the potential to undermine LEED’s dominance and slow the growth of the U.S. Green Building Council. The existence of Green Globes in Canada doesn’t seem to have stymied the CaGBC, however, which has grown at a rate of 10% per month since it was created, according to Zimmerman. Competition could also prove beneficial to LEED, which until now has been the only game in town, and therefore the sole focus of demands from all sides about what it should and should not do. Perhaps the introduction of choice in the market will clarify some issues and lead to improvements all around.
