Image courtesy of the FSC.

The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) has articulated seven “Guiding Principles” to help make decisions. One of the seven seems especially timely now as the organization overhauls its LEED program: Establish Leadership. The principle emphasizes USGBC’s role in driving societal changes “that achieve a more robust triple bottom line.”

Unfortunately, much of the second LEED 2012 draft is at odds with this laudable principle, especially when considered through the lens of forest health.

As America’s largest conservation organization — with more than four million members — the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) works to protect and restore wildlife habitat, confront global warming and connect people with nature. With such ambitious goals, NWF looks for all forms of leverage to advance its mission. So, it is no wonder that NWF views LEED as a potentially powerful tool — but only if the bar is set high.

After reviewing the proposed revisions to LEED, NWF has come to the conclusion that USGBC can and should do much better for U.S. forests. This second draft is a big step backwards from the market-transforming standards set in earlier versions of LEED.

It’s important to remember that in the U.S., particularly in the Southeast and Pacific Northwest, there are still very harmful industrial forest practices that damage wildlife habitat, harm water quality, threaten endangered species and release climate pollution. In short, barely legal forestry in the U.S. is not good enough to be called “green.”

NWF’s concerns with the LEED 2012 draft are shared widely among its colleagues in other leading environmental organizations. And while there are many details, the concerns are motivated primarily by an over-reliance on vague, unproven life-cycle assessment (LCA) and “bio-based” tools that fail to account for many of the values in forests.

For example, all wood looks the same to LCA, even if it was harvested in a way that degrades water quality or destroys old growth habitat. It is clear that all wood is not the same. And the very values LCA ignores are the ones USGBC professes to be guided by in its effort to promote triple bottom line outcomes.

To be truly green, a standard must go above and beyond what is required by law. This isn’t just NWF’s opinion, it’s the definition for green marketing claims set by the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC also has a name for calling something “green” that doesn’t meet the legal requirements: greenwash.

At a high level, the solutions are straightforward: Connect minimum performance standards to bio-based credits. For wood, the minimum acceptable standard is Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification. Limit reliance on LCA to one transparency credit. LCA is an important emerging tool and incentivizing development of LCA tools is good, but the credits awarded should take into account the relatively nascent state of LCA science and application. And finally, create incentives for FSC Pure (now known as FSC 100%) while also crediting FSC Mix. As the market matures, there will be more opportunity for FSC 100%, but that is not the reality today.

USGBC is at a crossroads. Created with strong support from environmental groups and design leaders, USGBC has grown into an organization with global impact that shapes billions of dollars of investment. As a large organization itself, NWF understands well the challenges of growth. Yet to grow gracefully, commitment to mission and guiding principles must always remain front and center. And in the case of the LEED 2012 update, it seems the USGBC may have stepped off this path.

Luckily, there is still time for significant revisions before the members vote on the standard next year.