I agree that some companies that are not green are building their projects to be LEED certified for PR value, but if Goldman Sachs is going to build something there is little value in criticizing them for doing it green, regardless of their history. People change, as do companies and the people that run them. I think calling out that one absurd residential skyscraper project for that oil billionaire as a reference for what types of buildings are typically getting LEED certified is sensationalism and vastly misrepresentational of the majority of LEED certified buildings. Until the government stops subsidizing big oil, the most profitable and polluting industry in the world, and starts requiring and subsidizing more sustainable, building/cars, etc... there are going to be others out there like the USGBC organizing a voluntary system for sustainable design. Its not a perfect system, but at least its striving for the greater good. I find it ironic that the writer/reporter/opinionist is spending their time badmouthing the USGBC while there is a FORD advertisement plastered across the top of this web article. I think the reason this reporter is not spending more time reporting why our government is not requiring all buildings to be more energy efficient has a lot to do with that add. BTW Doesn't the republican argument that new sustainable standards for cars and buildings will destroy the current economies fall flat on its face, when this article mentions that a LEED certified building costs an extra 100k in consulting fees? That sounds like current econimic growth to me...