1. A number of industry studies support claims concerning the reduction in energy cost, carbon emissions and other benefits from property developers "going green" and investing in "green" design and construction methods prescribed, for example, by LEED. Citing only their own in-house research, one recent publication from the CaGBC claims that "...LEED buildings, on an annual basis, use 18 - 39% less energy per square foot of floor area than their conventional counterparts and earn over a twenty percent return on initial investments to obtain LEED certification." A study commissioned by the California Real Estate Council found that LEED certified buildings, on average, emit 50% less GHG emissions from water use, 48% less GHGs from solid waste and 5% less GHGs from transportation services.3 Despite evidence to the contrary, for the purpose of this question assume that, relative to conventional buildings, LEED certified buildings do, on average, exhibit at least some amount of decline, regardless of the magnitude claimed. A. Do you interpret the findings of academic and industry studies favorable to LEED certification to be gross or net estimations of benefits to society? Or, as studies from both sources argue by omission, that these "gross" and "net" benefits are in fact equivalent? B. If you interpret the published benefits, regardless of magnitude, as at least positive, as being gross rather than net values, what is the single most important aspect of the implementation of LEED design and construction that is overlooked in these studies