[Greenbuilding] 100 miles builds

David Bergman bergman at cyberg.com
Fri Feb 24 19:05:45 CST 2012


I fielded a question this week in the Green Home Guide about buying 
"Made in America" products and discussed what aspects of that were or 
weren't green, including points like Gennaro's about types and 
distances of transportation. 
http://greenhomeguide.com/askapro/question/are-there-any-high-efficacy-luminaires-that-are-100-american-made

David Bergman  RA   LEED AP
DAVID BERGMAN ARCHITECT / FIRE & WATER LIGHTING + FURNITURE
architecture . interiors . ecodesign . lighting . furniture
bergman at cyberg.com    www.cyberg.com
241 Eldridge Street #3R, New York, NY 10002
t 212 475 3106    f 212 677 7291

author - Sustainable Design: A Critical Guide
adjunct faculty - Parsons The New School for Design

At 07:57 PM 2/24/2012, Gennaro Brooks-Church - Eco Brooklyn wrote:
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20120224/a042991f/attachment.html>


More information about the Greenbuilding mailing list