[Greenbuilding] 100 miles builds

[RT]

On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 08:48:10 -0500, Corwyn <corwyn at midcoast.com> wrote:

>
> Put another way, a ton of polystyrene shipped by container ship from  
> Savannah GA, to Portland ME would be less embodied energy in transport  
> than a ton of straw at a farm 15 miles away that I have to pick up  
> myself in my car.
>
> See what I mean?
>
>> It gets people thinking about the issue of impact/footprint/etc.
>
> But does it?  I suspect rather that it gives them a simple rule of thumb  
> which they can use INSTEAD of thinking.
>


I've not gone back in the archives to see the roots of the conversation  
above but I can see some flaws in the above "thinking".

While it may be true that sending a ton of something by ship from S to P  
may involve less transport energy than picking up some locally-produced  
item using one's car, the material coming by ship would still first need  
to get from the factory to the ship at point S, probably by truck, and  
then from the ship at point P to some distribution centre, again by truck,  
and then from the distribution centre to the supplier again by truck and  
then from the supplier to the site,with yet another truck trip and who  
knows how many Hyster trips in between each of the above.

There are very few cases where the transportation energy for long distance  
shipping is actually less than that for locally-produced materials.

This is aside from the issues surrounding why something from far away may  
be so much cheaper to buy making it attractive enough to consider, than  
something that is locally produced.

As  a "for instance"...

If one goes into one of the major national supermarket chain stores here  
in Ottawa, one will find produce and meat sourced from US producers  
selling at prices that are cheaper than in those in another grocery store  
that sources the same items from Canadian farmers.

Someone interested only in price would opt for the cheaper US-produced  
items from the national chain store. Someone interested in quality of  
goods,  ethical farming practices, fair treatment of suppliers, etc, would  
likely opt for the slightly more costly locally-sourced items.

While it is true that there are always exceptions to generalisations (as  
is any Rule of Thumb) which will render that generalisation false, I  
suspect that when using the "300 km radius"  or the "100 mile (160 km)  
radius" Rule of Thumb, the exceptions will be few enough to make it a  
useful "first glance" evaluation tool.

If the specific case warrants a closer second look to see whether it  
deserves an exclusion from the Rule of Thumb, then there's nothing that  
prevents one from doing so, as far as I'm aware.


-- 
=== * ===
Rob Tom
Kanata, Ontario, Canada

< A r c h i L o g i c  at  Y a h o o  dot  c a  >
(manually winnow the chaff from my edress if you hit "reply")