Around here there's a big push for a LEED certified "green hospital." But they want to build it on formerly-prime ag land, and included in the redevelopment was a high end subdivision (that is now having trouble being filled up with people). All this activity is taking place on the outskirts of city limits, with the city limits expanded to incorporate it, giving the development projects access to city sewer, water, street maintenance and police services at a time when budgets are being cut back and fees for services are going up.

Meanwhile, it turns out that because the hospital is new, it must comply with gargantuan though well intended building and ventilation standards that mean it will use MORE energy than the current hospital! And these same standards require automation of nearly everything so that windows can't be opened manually, for example. Without electricity the place will be useless it seems, and yet part of the reason for having a hospital here is that in case of disaster we are isolated. Well, couldn't a disaster take out power for an extended period? Yes. So how much back up power exists? Three days of diesel. Any plan to use renewable energy? No, too expensive.

Furthermore, all the existing doctors offices, which cluster around the current facility might need to be relocated to another set of yet to be built buildings since doctors here follow their patients in the hospital. But until then doctors are expected to drive back and forth, umpteen times per day.

In the discussions with the design team I brought up "boundary of analysis" and was basically told that they only assess within the project property itself.

So much for "green."

Remind me of some "green" houses in San Francisco that cost like a few millions. So much for that idea... When anything "green" that ends up costing 3x, 5x what people normally paid -- I wonder what the point!!!
Same thing with Organic --- great if you have the money to buy "organic" for 3x the normal price. 99% of the people, probably, don't -- does that make a "green revolution"?

LEED is just crap but the architectural establishment suckers STUPID local government into supporting it.

Architects simply won't allow proper insulation and want to designs they always do--paper-thin walls, lots of glass, standard building construction methods that allow 'thermal bridges', inadequate air tightness but allows lots of meaningless gimmicks. To be a LEED-NC professional you must memorize a bunch of worthless 'green facts' for a $200 test.

The final product is a joke.

Energy Star run by DOE is based on simulated annual energy consumption and is definitely superior but the best real world savings is about 30% below standard new. I understand that commercial property developers consider Energy Star more realistic that LEED and price those properties higher.

Passive House looks at a 90% reduction below standard new but does require many lifestyle changes. Rooms are smaller, windows are for passive solar heating, efficencies of appliances is very high. Water usage is restricted.
Still if we are running out of energy it is very possible that a Passive House lifestyle would survive a drastic reduction in energy with ease.