[Greenbuilding] 100 miles builds

Sat Feb 25 10:37:51 CST 2012

There is tremendous context here. People focus on transportation footprint
but it goes so far beyond that. When we review products we look at several
criteria and at the whole body comparing alternative products. The art of
LCA gets complicated‹and fascinating‹real fast.

If a product is made in the PNW of the US, there will be a high carbon
footprint transporting it to the east coast (unless it goes rail‹rare), but
it was likely made with hydroelectric power. If it was made at a plant that
buys wind power, that¹s a respectable offset. If that product was made in
China, there is a high chance it was made with coal‹dirty coal. Most of the
developing world doesn¹t have nearly the environmental and OSHA requirements
that we have in US, Canada, EU and Japan.  And lest you think that¹s their
problem, 5-10% of US air pollution is from China emissions. Soot from the
top of the Empire State Building has been traced to Chinese smokestacks.

In addition, if it¹s made in the US, it¹s supporting my own wellbeing b/c
it¹s propping the economy that I depend on. It¹s potentially lining the
pockets of the people that fund our national parks, that buy recycled
products that divert from the waste stream that would otherwise end up in
OUR landfills and waters, and that otherwise benefit our own ³backyards².

If it¹s made in the US or other Western nations, it doesn¹t support the
development of a nation and its armed forces that is NOT our ally. The
Chinese and Russians are supporting Syria¹s Assad. It¹s OUR MONEY that made
it possible for them to get in our way. Its the Chinese that are still
buying Iranian oil, buying Sudanese oil fields (funding genocide), and
propping the North Koreans. If anyone has any question on how this directly
correlates to green or sustainability, let me know.

The Chinese know fear more than anything else. If they fear social unrest
from the pollution, illness and living conditions, they¹ll turn off those
plants and factories in one day. If local workers rise up b/c they¹re losing
their jobs b/c western buyers are boycotting or onshoring production, the
Communist bosses MIGHT start acting sort of responsibly.

We can¹t stovepipe these issues and criteria. It¹s a much bigger web. This
is fundamentally how green building involves deeper consideration and
thought. That¹s the real art that sets some of us apart. Bravo Gennaro.

On 2/24/12 8:05 PM, "David Bergman" <bergman at cyberg.com> wrote:

> 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-luminai
> res-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 <http://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 <http://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.bioener
>>> gylists.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.bioenerg
>> ylists.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.bioenergy
> lists.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20120225/7a843d4d/attachment.html>