[Greenbuilding] wood structures best for the environment

[John Salmen]

I would hate to assure my children future based on that article. The basic premise is that wood sequesters CO2 – its easy to get – and if we don’t use it... it rots or burns down? The article also seems full of the words ‘probably’, ‘could’,’may be’  and ‘possibly’ along with a lot of nice graphs. On the dark side its developing an argument for continued use of mature virgin wood as opposed to manufactured farmed wood products. 

 

I have a read a lot of quickly conceived and poorly written funded articles on the environment lately.  It is getting very confused out there. About the only thing I could say with certainty at this point is that if we built less and with less material we would our carbon footprint accordingly – as to the products?

 

From: Greenbuilding [mailto:greenbuilding-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Sacie Lambertson
Sent: October-08-14 6:31 AM
To: Green Building
Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] wood structures best for the environment

 

George and Michael, would you care to clarify your thoughts please, something elucidative?  Sacie

 

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 10:56 PM, George Hawirko <ergodesk at gmail.com> wrote:

A total load of BS.

  _____  

From: Sacie Lambertson <mailto:sacie.lambertson at gmail.com> 
Sent: ‎2014-‎10-‎06 8:35 PM
To: Greenbuilding <mailto:Greenbuilding at lists.bioenergylists.org> 
Subject: [Greenbuilding] wood structures best for the environment

>From the very excellent Environment Building News: 


Wood Structures Could Reduce Global Carbon by Almost a Third


 <http://www2.buildinggreen.com/print/article/wood-structures-could-reduce-global-carbon-almost-third> Printer-friendly version

Using sustainably harvested timber in place of concrete, steel, and brick would have a massive positive impact, a new study asserts.

By Paula Melton

Reduction in GHG Emissions from Replacing Steel with Wood

 <http://www2.buildinggreen.com/sites/buildinggreen.com/files/articles/wood%20carbon%20graph.jpg> 

Source: Carbon, Fossil Fuel, and Biodiversity Mitigation With Wood and Forests, Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 33:3, 248-275  <http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2013.839386> 

What would happen if we replaced all concrete, steel, and brick with wood products in new construction? A whole lot of good, suggests a new study from researchers at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. 

The analysis, “Carbon, Fossil Fuel, and Biodiversity Mitigation With Wood and Forests <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10549811.2013.839386> ,” published in the Journal of Sustainable Forestry, concludes that total replacement would result in a 14%–31% reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions, a 12%–19% reduction in global fossil-fuel consumption, and a likely increase in biodiversity.

The ranges are so wide because impacts vary according to how trees are harvested and how efficiently the forestry products are used, the authors explain, pointing to cross-laminated timber as an efficient use of wood (see Engineering a Wood Revolution <http://www2.buildinggreen.com/article/engineering-wood-revolution> ). Most of the savings in carbon would come from avoided emissions; some of the fossil-fuel savings would come from direct burning of scrap wood for energy. The impact of sequestering carbon in the wood itself—whether in a building or in a forest—is small by comparison.

Projected increases in biodiversity would result from “active management,” the authors argue, explaining that more-open forest structures tend to support the greatest number of species. Given the fragmented state of the world’s forests, it may be “prudent” to manage them in a way that creates more diversity rather than waiting for natural processes to take back over, they argue, adding that “in the process of this active management, some trees can be harvested and utilized.”

The researchers recommend that incentive programs and building codes should encourage the use of sustainably harvested wood in place of concrete and steel, and that forestry programs should account for the fact that carbon sequestration in forests may be “counterproductive” if it results in more concrete and steel production.

Sacie

Also an excellent piece from same source re Thermal Bridging and the huge heat loss therein.


_______________________________________________
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/20141008/d81edf37/attachment.html>