[Greenbuilding] 100 miles builds

[Jason Holstine]

I don¹t even see how Rule of Thumb could apply to manufacturing distance and
location. Just too many variables and exceptions...layers of the onion.


On 2/25/12 11:01 AM, "RT" <archilogic at yahoo.ca> wrote:

> 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.
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20120225/c470e513/attachment.html>