[Greenbuilding] 100 miles builds

[David Bergman]

Agreed -- ideally we'd use detailed LCA to do our comparisons, and 
the LCAs would incorporate all transportation legs, using local 
ecological impact factors to account for variables such as different 
energy sources and differing environmental reg's/standards. So a 
product shipped from, say, India might include shipment by truck 
(using typical Indian truck standards and fuels) to the port, thence 
by ship to probably the West Coast, thence by large truck to a 
distribution center, thence by smaller truck to a retailer and 
smaller truck or car from there (or by UPS-type truck from 
distribution center to end user).

The socio-political issues (mentioned in Jason's great previous post) 
are even more difficult -- if possible at all -- to quantify.

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 11:46 AM 2/25/2012, Jason Holstine wrote:
>I don't 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.htm>archilogic at yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 08:48:10 -0500, Corwyn 
><<corwyn at midcoast.htm>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.
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20120225/9e61abe2/attachment-0001.html>