I'm one of those who subscribes to the notion that I would prefer to not belong to any club that accepts people like me as members. Being "green" is the latest club. Now in architecture there is a new subset of available credentials above and beyond our professional licenses, called LEED certification.
This organization (if you're a member) essentially quantifies your buildings by scoring points of what somebody considers a "green" or "greener" aspect of the structure. Indeed there is a LEED Silver and Gold certification, and even a Platinum LEED certification. Apparently, only certain among us have the credit available to hold a Platinum rating.
To paraphrase Gerry Brown who when many years ago became the youngest governor of California explained, "... sometimes not doing something in government is actually accomplishing something." With sustainability in mind, we are actually better off not creating any new architecture, instead use the over capacity already in place. Unfortunately, under capitalism this is very difficult to achieve.
So environmental pundits with good intentions, I guess, created a kit of parts point system to evaluate and score the worthiness of a building to qualify and carry this branded label called LEED. Presumably there is a premium. During the last design awards program (AIA Seattle) one of the winning solutions discussed with the jury that the decision making process to include some feature was... well, it added some 2 points each to achieving LEED certification. I'm old enough to remember Green stamps.
Good design is not something you score. Neither is sustainability. Its bad enough the political beauty contests that occur at the annual design awards. As a licensed architect myself, I reject the notion that I need to belong to any organization to design and behave in a ecological manner. I believe I've been doing this all along. What's my license for?