>>1432998You're probably in the realm of being on the money - the embodied carbon footprint of the building does depend on more than just what most consider at surface level.
Many, but not all, architecture programs concerned with environmental sustainability now also inform their students on the possibility of being aware of the embodied energy in producing materials. Things like steel and concrete obviously demand more energy, as well as things like water, to produce. Wood uses the least, and also "stores" more carbon.
LEED-certification is only an additive evaluative process - it does not deduct points, and rather only adds them. That means, that if you check a lot of the checkboxes that LEED has - all of which are attached to varying number of LEED points - while still have atrocious natural ventilation schemes or, like you mentioned, insulation schemes, and you hit the minimum number of points for Gold, you'll get Gold.
LEED also allows for the developer to pay certain amounts of money that are "for the cause of subsidizing other environmental-protection programs" in order to earn more points. That, is definitely bullshit, and thus, LEED has a lot of bullshit.
But yeah, it's not all bad - we gotta start somewhere. But the Living Learning Challenge really does consider the aspects of a project's existence that you mentioned in OP.
