How can you compare different green building rating systems?

Comparing different green building rating systems involves evaluating their criteria, certifications, and applicability to project goals. Consider factors like energy efficiency, water conservation, materials, and indoor air quality. Assess the comprehensiveness and stringency of each system, such as LEED, BREEAM, or Green Globes. Examine regional relevance and adaptability to local regulations. Evaluate the certification process and associated costs. Prioritize systems aligned with project priorities and long-term sustainability objectives. Ultimately, a thorough analysis will guide the selection of the most suitable green building rating system for a given construction project.

Sustainability...a multi-faceted word that appears to be defined by many. On definition is that sustainable engineering is the process of designing or operating systems to use energy and natural resources in a cost-effective manner that does not compromise the natural environment, social equity or the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.( University of Buffalo, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, 2024). Okay, now what that mean to the lay person. At the user end it often goes unnoticed and this is by design. First, all sustainable attributes are built into the operating system, often unbeknownst by the user. Second, requirements for the operating system to be used should be minimal.

By evaluating below aspects, An informed decision based on the specific needs, goals, and context of green building project, can be made. - Concluding the recognition and acceptance of each system within the construction and real estate industries. A widely recognized system may have more influence on market behavior. - Evaluating the ease of use and accessibility of each system. A user-friendly system encourages wider adoption within the industry. - Assessing how well each system aligns with the climatic conditions of the specific region where the building is located. Example - The rating systems should include questions around flood defence systems for a building located in an area more vulnerable to pluvial floods.

Based on energy efficiency, water conservation, waste elimination, renewable power utilisation the buildings are rated as Platinum, Gold & Silver

First off, we need to stop calling them 'green building' rating systems. And call them what they are, 'carbon' rating systems. Calling them anything else is essentially greenwashing.

Green building ratings offer assurance to your stakeholders that your sustainability claims are credible. Whether it's your bank, your customers or the local government, stakeholders want to be sure that when someone says a building is green, it is meeting certain thresholds

It's not just about demonstrating your environmental stewardship, but more importantly, about being transparent with how a building is constructed–using an embodied carbon analysis–and that alternatives exist to what is considered normal in the construction, built-environment. These rating systems should read more like an ingredient list on food products and explicitly describe the impact of those materials, processes, etc.

Recognizing their importance needs to come with incentivizing policies and public pressure, especially when retrofitting involves a huge cost, and improving energy efficiency or adopting RE sources would be a more logical option. You can commit to the environment without going through the rigidity of the rating systems, but to voluntarily go through the green building rating system, I am tad bit pessimistic about its popularity. It not being a regulatory compliance is just another brownie point for being 'extra green'.

Green building rating systems are important because they promote sustainable development, minimize environmental impacts, and improve occupant wellbeing.

Green building rating system is often used to show the buildings environmental impact. It helps validates the 'greeness' of a building as there are many 'green' buildings that aren't actually GREEN. It looks beyond the surface and esthetics and verifies the core performance of the building. Depending on the type of rating system used, it can also open doors for accessing green financing for developers and it is a marketing tool too as the demand for green buildings increases.

They're similar in what they're measuring. But they fall short by not having universal standards for what's being measured. What one rating system rates for energy usage isn't the same equation in another rating system. These equations are often arbitrary, produced in-house, self-regulated and not confirmed with third-party agencies or sources.

I disagree with this statement. Not all green building certifications aim to improve the ENVIRONMENTAL performance. Some certifications, focus on health and wellbeing, which is different to environmental. I would say all green building rating schemes are trying to create benchmarks for comparison to make the built environment more sustainable (using the triple bottom line as the definition of sustainability)

There are similarities between the numerous green building rating systems available however the local context and environmental/climatic factors offer major distinctions. Generally, Energy efficiency, water efficiency and material efficiency (read as embodied carbon) are core concepts that are seen in each of these systems however the weight they carry vary accordingly per system.

One international green building rating system is EDGE. EDGE was developed by IFC (World Bank) to enable mass market transformation of the built environment. Some of its key differentiators: -only focuses on 3 categories (energy efficiency, water efficiency, and embodied carbon in materials) -it offers a free software platform called the EDGE App that can be used by all, whether they certify or not, to make better design decisions (for new build or retrofit) -It has local baselines for every single country around the world so allows for localisation while maintaining one global standard of comparison -it is entirely quantifiable

LEED y BREEAM son sistemas de certificación para construcciones sostenibles, pero difieren en enfoque y alcance geográfico. LEED, más común en América del Norte, se centra en eficiencia energética y ofrece flexibilidad modular. BREEAM, predominantemente en Europa, destaca biodiversidad y ciclo de vida de materiales con un sistema de puntuación numérica. Ambos reflejan un compromiso global con la sostenibilidad, brindando opciones para edificaciones más respetuosas con el medio ambiente.

The advantages of using EDGE are: -using one global approach that takes local differences into account and delivers comparable results -time and cost-effective to implement at scale (companies are applying it across thousands of buildings) -quantifiable CO2 metrics on operational and embodied carbon through the EDGE App (so ease of CSR reporting) -recognised by all major financial institutions (it was developed by a bank with banks in mind) -ease of the process (no extra studies or materials required, wholly digital process, and EDGE App can be used by anybody to complete a self-assessment)

Rating systems offer an effective approach to analyze and optimize energy consumption in private, commercial, and public buildings. They enable comparisons and set standards for resource-efficient construction. These systems contribute to reducing energy costs and protecting the environment by raising awareness of personal consumption and encouraging efficient resource use.

Both EDGE and LEED serve important roles in promoting sustainable building practices, but they cater to different needs and contexts. EDGE is an efficient, cost-effective solution for projects in developing countries or smaller scale developments focusing on basic efficiencies. In contrast, LEED offers a more comprehensive framework for sustainability, suitable for projects with larger budgets and a desire for global recognition and a broader environmental impact. The choice between EDGE and LEED depends on the project's specific goals, budget, scale, and geographical location. Understanding the disadvantages of each system is crucial in making an informed decision that aligns with a project's sustainability objectives and constraints.

Firstly, rating systems should not have a profit component attached to them. Paying for certifications creates an environment where companies and people don't want to "pay to play", which is a disservice to the end user. And it creates a business model that centralizes the information needed to obtain the certification(s). In this time of need–for climate change and electrifying our society–we need absolute transparency for tactics, approaches, systems and materials need to solve problem; climate change.

The disadvantage EDGE has is that it only focuses on 3 categories, which means companies going above and beyond can't get those measures recognised (for example improving biodiversity). For flagship projects, clients often go for dual certification, for example LEED and EDGE, where LEED covers the categories not included in EDGE and EDGE is used to prove the energy efficiency and carbon savings of buildings.

The heterogeneity of sustainable building rating systems in Germany can pose challenges. The variety of standards can lead to confusion among builders and developers, making it difficult to choose the most appropriate system. This diversity can also result in inconsistent application and enforcement of sustainability practices across different regions and building types. Furthermore, the existence of multiple systems may lead to a lack of unified national benchmarks, complicating efforts to track and compare overall progress in sustainable construction. These issues highlight the need for a more harmonized approach to ensure effectiveness and widespread adoption of green building principles.

Beyond voluntary rating systems, green building standards/codes should be grafted into standard building codes to scale up the impact of building green. The cost of third party Certification is often seen as a barrier especially in developing countries as such there should be policy driven incentives by governments to drive adoption of green buildings. National governments can also localise green building rating systems for each countries specific needs.

Another concept to explore is the Living Building Challenge (LBC), which essentially views buildings as *regenerative* structures. From passive users of recourses to active stewards. Eg of the requirements include generating more fresh water and clean energy than the building consumes. Apparently, huge companies like Google and Etsy have adhered to these requirements!

As green building enthusiasts seek to codify green building standards, consideration should be given on how to incentivise existing building owners to make the necessary modifications on their properties to transit to more resource effecient buildings. Initial costs are a major factor to consider in this transition, and I more needs to be done in the way of subsidies, grants and green financing. I've been involved in a number of projects where corporate organizations are transiting to the use of solar energy from diesel fueled generating sets. The initial cost is massive, but the long term savings would be to their benefit, and we have less GHG emissions.

There is an alphabet soup of green building ratings. Each one has a purpose and a target. Before deciding which one to pursue, make sure you understand what they cover and you know WHY you want a green building rating. This will help you make an informed decision and find the most suitable rating for your project

Green building rating systems in Germany promote sustainability but can inadvertently contribute to social inequality. By enforcing these standards quickly and rigidly, low-income earners face significant challenges in adapting to new requirements. Approximately 70% of energy consumption in the building sector is for heating, underscoring the need for efficient systems. However, the cost of upgrading to meet these standards can be prohibitive for those with limited means. To address this, the government must provide substantial subsidies to support necessary transformations, ensuring that the transition towards environmentally friendly buildings is equitable and doesn’t disproportionately burden the financially disadvantaged.