by aleida, on November 21st, 2009
The second Greenbuild session I attended was titled The Evolving Recognition of Certified Wood Products in LEED. This wasn’t exactly an educational session, but rather was categorized as a “Specialty Update” on “proposed changes to LEED credits that recognize the use of certified wood or wood-based products,” as described in the Education Program. I actually arrived about twenty minutes late, so I completely missed the introduction. By the time I got there, the presenter had finished reviewing whatever he had prepared and was literally just waiting for comments and questions from the audience.
Despite a couple of awkward moments of utter silence, there was discussion of several topics such as illegal logging, chain of custody requirements, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). What also seemed to be a concern was that the wood industry is at a particular disadvantage. It already has a few certifications (like FSC and SFI), but there isn’t one that governs all woods. So how can the LEED rating system recognize these disparate efforts? A suggestion came up that there should be a certification system for wood originating in North America, another system for tropical wood, and a third system that would govern wood from the rest of the world. Ultimately, the goal is to find a way to measure across common ground. And it sounded as if the USGBC needs to hear a unified call from the different rating organizations in order to arrive at a system that will work for LEED. One audience member, a rep from either FSC or SFI (it was hard to tell who from the audience spoke) yelled that their organization is ready to pursue consensus with the other organization. We’ll see if that leads to anything in the future.
On GMO trees, the primary question was whether or not any benchmarks should actually prohibit their use. There was an understanding that there is a legitimate concern over how GMO trees are introduced and used. However, it was also recognized that trees are under stress from pathogens, so that, if there is a market incentive for the creation of GMO trees, then it would also be smart to have rules in place that can guide that potential market. I had actually not thought about GMO trees before. So I did just a bit of research into this and, as with any topic on GMOs in general, there is a lot written supporting both the pro and con position. Generally, though, genetic modification of trees can achieve many things, some of which includes making trees resistant to pests and diseases, speeding up the breeding cycle, and selecting for more desired wood properties. Genetically modified trees have been around for over twenty years. I’ll be sure to keep an eye out for this topic from now on. I am not entirely on board with the idea of GMOs, but it will most definitely be fascinating to see how the industry judges this technology in the years to come.
Did you also attend this session? If so, what did I miss at the beginning?
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by R. Aleida Montejo, Kevin ODonnell. Kevin ODonnell said: a new post continuing to review #greenbuild educational sessions – part 2 of 6 – http://ow.ly/EoLP – #green #greenbuilding [...]