Transcript From Prognostication to Prudence: The Importance of

Demonizing Materials: Does the
USGBC Believe Its Own
Reasoning?
Vinyl Institute Annual Meeting
November 7, 2013
Ujjval K. Vyas, Ph.D., J.D.
Principal, Alberti Group
[email protected]
312-810-1008
Consistency
• Those of us schooled in the humanities or the sciences
know that lack of consistency in basic tenets or
applications signals a fatal flaw in the argument
• Arbitrary or unsupportable assumptions create
consistency problems; often takes on religious overtones
• Skepticism regarding the assumptions is not allowed; thus
the constant struggle between activism and science
• Most of the effort goes into excusing or finding new
justifications for the inconsistencies
• Usually involves a rejection of scientific niceties
© 2013 Alberti Group, LLC
Precautionary Principle is USGBC key
• Any chance of harm at all and the substance must be
banned
• Manufacturer or other entity must demonstrate definitively
that the substance causes or will cause no harm before
allowed into stream of commerce
• Cannot wait for science, must proactively ban
• Nanomaterials, demonizing of chemicals of all types,
GMOs, autism vaccines, etc.
• Europe, SF, EPA, USGBC, Healthy Building Network,
• Red lists are based on this principle
© 2013 Alberti Group, LLC
Precautionary Principle
• PP cannot be applied coherently and leads to arbitrary
application; “void for vagueness” problems
• Cheese, beer, wine, medicine would all be banned
using PP
• Since there is no balancing of benefits and risk, all things that
may have large or small negative possible outcomes now or in
the future must be banned preemptively
• Asthma as example: Perkins + Will and others claim that by
using PP red lists they can improve IAQ for asthma and other
diseases; but the causes of asthma are puzzling even to the
medical experts (pets, fecal bacteria)
© 2013 Alberti Group, LLC
Precautionary Principle
• PP also includes the claim that we cannot wait for scientific
evidence of harm, any chance that something may cause harm
is enough to ban its use
• Thus the red lists which are put together under the PP
and by environmental advocates in the public and NGO sectors
do not constitute objective information
• Use of a red list without letting client know that the data and
methodology used by advocates are not objective creates a
problem
• Must also inform client that the rating systems Pharos, LEED,
Living Building Challenge, etc. are products
© 2013 Alberti Group, LLC
Standard Curve
© 2013 Alberti Group, LLC
Inconsistent Application of PP by USGBC
• Application of PP to materials credits, red lists, material deselection collusion by designers are all attempts to provide
healthier outcomes beyond the current regimes of safety and
regulatory control
• Why is this needed? Science, governments, big business are
evil and in cahoots so activists and NGOs must provide a
counter-balance which isn’t subservient to science, government,
or big business
• Use of PP is arbitrary and a tool to attack old activist foes
• USGBC doesn’t actually believe in PP; only useful as a
convenient cudgel to beat chemical manufacturers
© 2013 Alberti Group, LLC
Photovoltaics
• USGBC and others are convinced that photovoltaics
should be massively encouraged
• Anyone that knows how photvoltaics are made and the
materials used in photovoltaics is awareof the highly toxic
nature of many of the key materials and processes
• These include gallium, arsenic, indium, platinum,
palladium, and silicon
• See the MSDS for gallium arsenide and PubMed
• These problems were already known in 2004
© 2013 Alberti Group, LLC
USGBC Doesn’t Believe in PP
• If the Precautionary Principle were actually applied to choices
encouraged by USGBC and others in this area, they would be
violating their own insistence on PP
• The use of the PP primarily against manufacturers and chemical
companies is a residue of the old activist thinking
• Human health is deeply tied to difficult choices and risk-taking:
surgery, chemotherapy, MRIs, etc. all require risks
• Human health and sustainability are usually rhetorical ways to
demonize certain segments of business
• The USGBC is not an objective entity but an activist group
© 2013 Alberti Group, LLC
Manufacturers and Suppliers
• Sales personnel should be very careful in representing to a
designer anything about health attributes of a product that is not
part of regulatory or compliance documentation
• MSDS, OSHA, EPA, etc.
• Should test the scientific knowledge base of the designers or
specifiers involved and clarify that all information provided must
be objective in dealing with human health
• HPD’s, EPDs, and other “voluntary” reporting should be looked
at very closely for embedded non-objective assumptions; ISO
doesn’t mean objective; only consensus
© 2013 Alberti Group, LLC
The Tail Wags the Dog
• Groups with little or no serious scientific training are being given
credence with the help of manufacturers and suppliers that are
seeking to win short term sales via “green” marketing activities
• Design professionals cannot act as activists and when they ask
other parties to further their own activist agendas, the answer
should be a polite no and a reminder that such activism is
outside the purview of their professional activities
• Owners are becoming aware of this problem with design
professionals and manufacturers should engage owners
© 2013 Alberti Group, LLC
Owners Are the Key Constituency
• Owners need to know that red lists, eco-labels, inappropriate
activism by designers lead to greater costs, schedule delays,
and increased overall risk for their projects
• Manufacturers need to have conversations with major public
and private owners to let them understand the issues from a
reality-based perspective regarding the additional costs and
risks of accepting NGO/activist propaganda especially as it
escalates
• Manufacturers need to put AIA on notice regarding the anti-trust
characteristics of de-listing letters
© 2013 Alberti Group, LLC