AIArchitect

First of all I have no doubt that both developers who have implemented environmentally friendly devices in the past and those who are readily embracing this practice today have done and are doing so simply because that is what the market is dictating and for no other reason.
For Universities there may be other reasons mixed in, but again the monetary advantages are always being weighed weather in energy performance or water savings, etc. and the environment benefits as a side effect.
Simply put if it were not for demand then this whole green movement would simply not exist.
As for corruption within the system one should remember the main difference between LEED and other similar green inititiatives is the third party commissioning. So if this person becomes neutralized by a tempting offer the whole system becomes corrupted.
Is this possible? Of course! It is only a matter of time. So how does one insure that this does not happen. Someone to oversee the overseer I suppose . . .

The systems are a FRAUD; how can a single use (office) building be called anywhere near sustainable when it is idle 70% of the week?

What is the author's definition of "sustainability?"

How does the author know what institutional motives were . . . until recently?

How does the author know their present motives?

Fraud in the system is certainly a given. If this is a problem, let DC and Chicago (and any other jurisdiction offering such incentives) deal with the issue.

The unelected USGBC should not be involved in any wrongful behavior identification or in responding to unethical practices.

As the author of the post, I would like to respond to the comment from Michael Adams. He has several valid points, including the definition of "sustainability" and my knowledge of the institutional motives for engaging in a LEED project.

For sustainability, I mean the LEED rating system (and leave to others the arguments about the link of LEED as a measure of sustainability).

For motives, for many years an owner could only expect to receive non-economic rewards for a LEED project, such as the USGBC certification. There were undoubtedly many motives for engaging in a LEED project, but direct economic benefit was not one of them.

While DC and Chicago (and other jurisdictions) should be wary of fraud, they are also relying on the USGBC for the validation of projects. My point is precisely that the USGBC is unelected and is not accountable as a federal or state agency.

There is a clear effort to create buildings that are more sustainable. This is a good start. LEED is a good rating system that empowers something of a benchmark with which to measure sustainable projects. It is a tool that is evolving and it will get better.

For now it is necessary to evolve the tools and processes of sustainability and of course limiting the potential for fraud is essential as a component of accountability and measured process improvement.

The goal, if we understand the aggregate of our built environment, our cities, as the body of civilization, is to reverse the trend of building cities that can not be self sustaining in any projected future. The body of civilization can not continue to coexist with the natural world given current practice. So we must adapt or evolve socially to attenuate a better fit between our living pattern and our world.

We need to see the city accurately as an extension of the organisms living pattern, and to establish a systemic movement inside that pattern of designing and building that will drive the ultimate achievement of a symbiotic relationship between the human organism's civilization and associated built environment; "the body of civilization" and the biosphere or living world.

in my work over the past ten years, I've seen very little that is "sustainable" about LEED rated buildings and a whole lot of marketing opportunity. for the most part, the developers I worked with in my previous office did absolutely the minimum required to get the LEED rating they were going after; they met the "letter" of the requirements, but certainly didn't meet the intent.
when a municipality hands over the inspection criteria to a third-party agency (such as USGBC) this does not, in my opinion, give an unbiased oversight to the contruction, but instead makes it more homogenous, less locally driven, and absolutely not open to review and oversight. The idea that one set of criteria is appropriate for Seattle and Phoenix is ludicrous; the idea that city zoning bonuses are based on criteria developed by an organization that answers to no one seems fraudulent to me.
in my current job, our projects are mechanically more sophisticated than anything I worked on previously, and they are planned that way out of a desire to do the best building, not increase the marketing opportunities.

Comments by Anne Whitacre align with my observation about USGBC and LEED requirements.
Indeed, government sponsored programs and ratings do not require fees to participate, do and require rigorous verification for energy saving in high performance buildings, for instance,
Here the question we should be asking is why LEED is so actively promoted by government entities and state-owned universities, when it adds tremendous administrative costs to each project.
Who makes money from LEED? Who decides what is sustainable. Why, the members of USGBC. Much controversy over products such as vinyl's use and manufacturer from an environmental standpoint has not ended. It will continue to be promoted as a building material because its producers are members of USBGC.