[Greenbuilding] 100 miles builds

[Gennaro Brooks-Church - Eco Brooklyn]

a tanker from china may use less embodied energy per lb of material
than a truck from texas to NY. I say "may" since I can't remember the
numbers, but there is a point where the tanker is "greener".
likewise it may seem greener to use cement from the plant next door
instead of importing clay from the next country, but after doing the
math maybe the clay transport creates less CO2 than the cement.
My point is that a mature green builder has complex questions that may
have different answers depending from what level you are looking.
I am in the Dominican Republic, where most local building is done with
cinder block instead of wood walls and thatch roof. People are poor
and cinder block is more expensive and less comfortable to live in.
Yet they pick it over wood and thatch because over the life of the
building it costs less due to the fact that cinder block lasts a lot
longer, is not as easily destroyed by hurricanes (earthquakes are not
a problem here...so far), and doesn't go up in flames.
So what is greener?
I've heard people justify metal for roofs for the same argument.
Mining metal destroys mountains and river, consumers large amounts of
energy but I am presuming they did the math (or not?!) and concluded
that one metal roof that lasts 100 years is greener than four  two pli
tar roofs.....?
I personally am very into natural materials with sacrificial
materials. This does involve more work. But it seems to me that human
energy is a lot more abundant than mountains and rivers. For example
in the Dominican a thatch roof that needs to be replaced every six
years would consume a lot of human energy vs. a metal roof that lasts
60. But the thatch does not require tearing up a mountain half way
across the world like metal does.
A thatch house requires a change not only in building technique but
lifestyle. If you are working 40 hour weeks in the office it may be
hard to take two weeks off to replace your roof and it may not be
financially feasible to pay somebody to do it for you (in that case
better to go with metal).
Just thoughts...
Gennaro Brooks-Church
Director, Eco Brooklyn Inc.
Cell: 1 347 244 3016 USA
www.EcoBrooklyn.com
22 2nd St; Brooklyn, NY 11231



On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Reuben Deumling <9watts at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Greenbuilding mailing list
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> Greenbuilding at bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org