Henry Gifford has been a thorn in the side of the US Green Building Council for a couple of years, since hewrote an article claiming that LEED rated buildings used 29% more energy than conventional buildings. LEED has changed a lot since then, but not enough for Henry; He’s launched a $100 million class action lawsuit against the USGBC, going after them for Sherman Act Monopolization through fraud, unfair competition, deceptive trade practices, false advertising, wire fraud and unjust enrichment. (PDF here)
Having spent a day in a Henry Gifford seminar, watching him explain the intricacies of steam piping and valves, I can attest that he is a character. But now I have to ask, is he nuts?Environmental lawyer Shari Shapiro at Green Building Law describes the suit in plain language:
She thinks that there will be more of this kind of litigation, but that Henry is a lousy plaintiff for it.
Shari concludes:
, Gifford denies this, and tells Tristan Roberts:
When asked why he was going to the trouble of suing, Gifford says:
I am not a LEED fanboy. As I see it, Henry made some very good points in 2008; In 2009, LEED changed, and now demands verification, so he’s flogging a dead horse. LEED also never was only about energy; green building covers a wider spectrum, energy savings are only one component.
By suing, Gifford just gave anti-greens a whole lot of ammunition. Gifford has made a good living, getting invited to lecture to professional groups like the Ontario Association of Architects, where I saw him. Now he has turned into the Lord Monckton of green building and will never eat lunch in that town again. He is hurting himself and green building in general. I think he’s nuts.
