[Greenbuilding] 100 miles builds

[Reuben Deumling]

well, but in practice this might be a good proxy, no? It gets people
thinking about the issue of impact/footprint/etc. and wouldn't you agree
that if people strove to build with 'local' materials and employed local
craftsmen to build the subassemblies like doors and windows we'd be a lot
further ahead?

I agree if the cement plant is next door one should go whole hog for Le
Corbusier, but what other specific examples can you think of that
contravene this idea that the impact is magnified by sourcing materials
from further away?

The point could also go beyond reduced embodied energy to re-localizing
skills and re-building infrastructure locally that would allow a builder to
avoid importing kiln dried 1x4s from several states away, for instance.

On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Corwyn <corwyn at midcoast.com> wrote:

> I think it misses the point.  The point is reduce embodied energy.  100
> miles is not a good proxy for that.  Material's embodied energy matters
> even if it is made next door.  Some transportation is much less energy
> intensive than others.  And so on.  Focus on the actual problem, otherwise
> you give those who want to hoodwink you something to hide behind.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20120224/c38d3a5a/attachment.html>