<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: USGBC: True Green LEEDership.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/08/usgbc-true-green-leedership/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/08/usgbc-true-green-leedership/</link>
	<description>Business, Better. Since 2005</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:19:54 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Carl Dunlap</title>
		<link>http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/08/usgbc-true-green-leedership/comment-page-1/#comment-15593</link>
		<dc:creator>Carl Dunlap</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2009 02:38:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.triplepundit.com/?p=10527#comment-15593</guid>
		<description>Nice article. Most will not read who are not green or getting green or have a product they can sell that is green. Too long. 

But while we are commenting I would say that Rome wasn&#039;t built in a day but anytime a building can look the same, unique or better, leave a lower carbon footprint, be more energy efficient, have same maintenance, same or longer longivity, and cost the same or less to build then the product (thin masonry wall systems utilizing thin-brick,thin stone, porcelain tile and such) should be rewarded by a linear amount versus the energy hog full size masonry which is 80% heaver, has no r value. For leed professionals to let a full size masonry system get any credit when the other is what it is makes me wonder who is driving this boat anyway.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice article. Most will not read who are not green or getting green or have a product they can sell that is green. Too long. </p>
<p>But while we are commenting I would say that Rome wasn&#8217;t built in a day but anytime a building can look the same, unique or better, leave a lower carbon footprint, be more energy efficient, have same maintenance, same or longer longivity, and cost the same or less to build then the product (thin masonry wall systems utilizing thin-brick,thin stone, porcelain tile and such) should be rewarded by a linear amount versus the energy hog full size masonry which is 80% heaver, has no r value. For leed professionals to let a full size masonry system get any credit when the other is what it is makes me wonder who is driving this boat anyway.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LEED</title>
		<link>http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/08/usgbc-true-green-leedership/comment-page-1/#comment-15474</link>
		<dc:creator>LEED</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:47:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.triplepundit.com/?p=10527#comment-15474</guid>
		<description>Wow, I hadn&#039;t thought about comparing the bike rack credit to the Brownfield credit. It does seem like quite a joke, at least on the Brownfield side. That should be worth more points. Bike racks are certainly important. And I like your method of thinking, that we should provide a default option to veer people in the direction we want them to go. That&#039;s a good one!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow, I hadn&#8217;t thought about comparing the bike rack credit to the Brownfield credit. It does seem like quite a joke, at least on the Brownfield side. That should be worth more points. Bike racks are certainly important. And I like your method of thinking, that we should provide a default option to veer people in the direction we want them to go. That&#8217;s a good one!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
