[tgsovlerkhgsel]

Some of these "green" certifications tend to become a negative marketing factor. "Green" buildings with such certifications are considered bad for comfort/health by many. In some cases it may be prejudice, often based on early buildings where initial issues with the new technologies weren't ironed out yet, leading to e.g. mold issues. In others, "green" certifications encourage approaches that are bad for health and/or comfort (e.g. ultra-low-flow faucets).

The environmental certifications I've seen often claim to also push for increased health and/or comfort, but due to the conflicting goals, I don't trust this at all and I suspect neither do others. I agree that we need a certification for health & comfort, and that should explicitly NOT take into account how "green" the building is, both to avoid conflicting interests and to make it more trustworthy.

With split standards, when someone wants to advertise a green building that's still comfortable, they can prove that they have the highest category of both ratings, and people will be able to trust it. Right now, they'll just show their great "environmental" rating and you don't know if you're getting a nice, comfortable and also environmentally friendly/low cost of energy building, or a mold-infested hellhole where you can't get fresh air nor take a proper shower just to save the last bit of energy.

I've seen both cases (buildings according to an unpopular primarily-environmental standard that were really nice to live in, and certified buildings that sucked due to measures obviously taken to get the certification), and it'd be nice to be able to distinguish them.