The Senator put it diplomatically, but no matter how you color it, I suspect the Green Globes is another greenwash, a public relations rear guard action by foot dragging corporations unwilling to do anything substantive about climate change. Of course, anti-science Republicanism will cling to this effort, bitter as they are about being forced to show public concern and responsibility for the commonweal... Dear heaven, it might have an adverse effect on quarterly profits!

Wait a second.  I'm confused.  Didn't Senator Deeds just APPLAUD the inclusion of Green Globes in the dudget a month ago?

http://creighdeeds.com/2008/03...

When Creigh celebrated the inclusion of Green Globes a month ago, did he know that it would actually LOWER environmental standards for state construction of buildings.

This is a big strike against Creigh for speaking out of both sides of his mouth.  He flipped in the right direction this time.  Let's hope he doesn't flop back when its convenient.
When it comes to protecting the environment, we need to be able to trust our leaders.

Not sure what you're getting at... Did you read both the press release that you link to, and the letter Lowell provided?

Senator Deeds applauds the fact that language was at least included in the budget (quite an accomplishment, given the partisan makeup of the House of Delegates) that requires new and renovated state-owned facilities to meet either the LEED or Green Globes criteria. The press release simply commends the fact that any green building iniative was included, and Creigh explicitly states in this letter provided by Lowell that he would have prefered the original language (LEED only) to the weakened version that managed to pass through conference.

Given the mixed partisan makeup of the General Assembly, compromise is the name of the game in Richmond. If we can take back the House of Delegates, we can get stronger Democratic legislation. It's that simple...

That being said... we've got 21, how about we aim for 51 in 2009?

Agreed on 51. We need it. Bad.

But Deeds didn't "compromise" on this. He shouldn't be comended. He sold us out.

Because accepting the LEED or GREEN GLOBES standard wasn't an accomplishment... it LOWERED environmental standards below what was ALREADY practice from the Governors Executive Order (#48).

Deeds didn't want to do something good for the environment. He just wanted to take credit for getting something done and boost his resume. Just another politican.

He would rather have LOWER environemtnal standards if it means he gets to take some credit for them.

...who stuck the "Green Globes" industry alternative to LEED in the bill?  And why?  That's what we need to know; my guess is that it was House Republicans.

Delegates Putney, Hamilton, Sherwood, Cox, Hogan, Joannou
Senators Colgan, Howell, Houck, Saslaw, Wampler, Stosch

Thanks.

The inner workings of the Republican Caucus, and indeed the General Assembly Republican mind, are truly beyond my comprehension.

Tim's Executive Order #48 relating to energy efficiency in state buildings has full force of law for the duration of the time it is in effect... until 2011. It's my understanding that, for the duration of the time that the order has left, the more stringent requirements remain in effect.  

What is important to note is that an EO is not a lasting part of the Code of Virginia though. Creigh's bill as it was originally written would have added Tim's same language to the Code of Virginia, so that when Tim's order is long gone three years down the road, at least some standard will be in place.

As I read it, Creigh's bill does not interfere or lower the pre-existing standards, because Tim's order is still in effect through 2011. Executive Orders are independent of the Code, but carry full force of law like anything that were in the code. Creigh's effort looks like a fail-safe measure, codifying and adding redundant language to the Code of Virginia, because there's no guarantee that three years from now the sitting governor would be a Democrat or Republican willing to extend the sunset expiration on the EO mandating LEED standards.

Of course, I could be evaluating this wrong. Thoughts?

Basically, the forestry industry (with a few other industries concerned about LEED, e.g., vinyl) created Green Globes as an alternative to LEED because LEED favors Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) standards for sustainable forestry products -- as opposed to the industry-backed Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) standards.  So, amazingly, the whole thing basically grew out of a concern over one small credit (out of dozens) in LEED.  (The vinyl industry concerns are even more bizarre, based on the concern that someday in the future, LEED may ban vinyl -- although it hasn't yet!)

So forest industry lobbyists track every state, local or Federal resolution or law that mentions LEED and make sure that it also mentions Green Globes or language on "other alternatives."  The General Assembly members who favored this amendment are probably to some extent under the influence of the state forestry lobby.

is all about. I'm also not surprised that the industries involved lobby heavily to water down LEED standards.  My "why" question wasn't about them, it was about the legislators -- what motivates them, who has given money to them, and ultimately why they voted to water down LEED standards.