October 24, 2011Dear Sir,The Global House fiasco is an example of poor needs identification and poor decision-making. It is not an example of the failure of new, energy-efficient technology. If we purchase a household appliance, say a clothes dryer, that doesn't work, we do not make the judgment that all clothes dryers are bad — perhaps we just bought a lemon, or picked a poor quality brand?LED lighting is new technology that has been proven to save on electricity, and to pay back the additional investment in less than a year. LED light is highly directional and is sometimes has a bluish tint (hence the “cave effect” quoted in your article of October 17th), however good quality LEDs use diffusers and colour filters. As industry standards for LED lights have been slow to develop the quality is highly variable with a recent Consumer Reports study (Aug 30, 2011) finding that “only about half were as bright as promised”. This makes it important to use reputable suppliers and to test the proposed fixtures.Both LED lights and fluorescent lights save on electricity and can be excellent choices for offices. They have been used extensively by members of Greenrock's Green Buildings Forum, and have been instrumental in reducing energy bills and NOT in reducing employee satisfaction.The Global House issue raised last week highlights the problems with political decision-making and poor suppliers, but should not deter anyone from choosing LED lights as part of a plan to live more sustainably.Yours Sincerely,JUDITH LANDBERGGreenrock President