<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [Greenbuilding] 100 miles builds</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>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.<BR>
<BR>
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, that’s 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 doesn’t have nearly the environmental and OSHA requirements that we have in US, Canada, EU and Japan. And lest you think that’s 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.<BR>
<BR>
In addition, if it’s made in the US, it’s supporting my own wellbeing b/c it’s propping the economy that I depend on. It’s 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 “backyards”. <BR>
<BR>
If it’s made in the US or other Western nations, it doesn’t support the development of a nation and its armed forces that is NOT our ally. The Chinese and Russians are supporting Syria’s Assad. It’s 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.<BR>
<BR>
The Chinese know fear more than anything else. If they fear social unrest from the pollution, illness and living conditions, they’ll turn off those plants and factories in one day. If local workers rise up b/c they’re losing their jobs b/c western buyers are boycotting or onshoring production, the Communist bosses MIGHT start acting sort of responsibly.<BR>
<BR>
We can’t stovepipe these issues and criteria. It’s a much bigger web. This is fundamentally how green building involves deeper consideration and thought. That’s the real art that sets some of us apart. Bravo Gennaro.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 2/24/12 8:05 PM, "David Bergman" <<a href="bergman@cyberg.com">bergman@cyberg.com</a>> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>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. <a href="http://greenhomeguide.com/askapro/question/are-there-any-high-efficacy-luminaires-that-are-100-american-made">http://greenhomeguide.com/askapro/question/are-there-any-high-efficacy-luminaires-that-are-100-american-made</a> <BR>
<BR>
David Bergman RA LEED AP<BR>
<FONT COLOR="#808080"><B>DAVID BERGMAN</B> ARCHITECT / <B>FIRE & WATER</B> LIGHTING + FURNITURE<BR>
architecture . interiors . </FONT><FONT COLOR="#008080">ecodesign</FONT><FONT COLOR="#808080"> . lighting . furniture<BR>
<a href="bergman@cyberg.com">bergman@cyberg.com</a> <U>www.cyberg.com <<a href="http://www.cyberg.com/">http://www.cyberg.com/</a>> </U> <BR>
241 Eldridge Street #3R, New York, NY 10002<BR>
t 212 475 3106 f 212 677 7291 <BR>
<BR>
author - Sustainable Design: A Critical Guide<BR>
adjunct faculty - Parsons The New School for Design</FONT> <BR>
<BR>
At 07:57 PM 2/24/2012, Gennaro Brooks-Church - Eco Brooklyn wrote:<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>a tanker from china may use less embodied energy per lb of material<BR>
than a truck from texas to NY. I say "may" since I can't remember the<BR>
numbers, but there is a point where the tanker is "greener".<BR>
likewise it may seem greener to use cement from the plant next door<BR>
instead of importing clay from the next country, but after doing the<BR>
math maybe the clay transport creates less CO2 than the cement.<BR>
My point is that a mature green builder has complex questions that may<BR>
have different answers depending from what level you are looking.<BR>
I am in the Dominican Republic, where most local building is done with<BR>
cinder block instead of wood walls and thatch roof. People are poor<BR>
and cinder block is more expensive and less comfortable to live in.<BR>
Yet they pick it over wood and thatch because over the life of the<BR>
building it costs less due to the fact that cinder block lasts a lot<BR>
longer, is not as easily destroyed by hurricanes (earthquakes are not<BR>
a problem here...so far), and doesn't go up in flames.<BR>
So what is greener?<BR>
I've heard people justify metal for roofs for the same argument.<BR>
Mining metal destroys mountains and river, consumers large amounts of<BR>
energy but I am presuming they did the math (or not?!) and concluded<BR>
that one metal roof that lasts 100 years is greener than four two pli<BR>
tar roofs.....?<BR>
I personally am very into natural materials with sacrificial<BR>
materials. This does involve more work. But it seems to me that human<BR>
energy is a lot more abundant than mountains and rivers. For example<BR>
in the Dominican a thatch roof that needs to be replaced every six<BR>
years would consume a lot of human energy vs. a metal roof that lasts<BR>
60. But the thatch does not require tearing up a mountain half way<BR>
across the world like metal does.<BR>
A thatch house requires a change not only in building technique but<BR>
lifestyle. If you are working 40 hour weeks in the office it may be<BR>
hard to take two weeks off to replace your roof and it may not be<BR>
financially feasible to pay somebody to do it for you (in that case<BR>
better to go with metal).<BR>
Just thoughts...<BR>
Gennaro Brooks-Church<BR>
Director, Eco Brooklyn Inc.<BR>
Cell: 1 347 244 3016 USA<BR>
www.EcoBrooklyn.com <<a href="http://www.ecobrooklyn.com/">http://www.ecobrooklyn.com/</a>> <BR>
22 2nd St; Brooklyn, NY 11231<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Reuben Deumling <<a href="9watts@gmail.com">9watts@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<BR>
> well, but in practice this might be a good proxy, no? It gets people<BR>
> thinking about the issue of impact/footprint/etc. and wouldn't you agree<BR>
> that if people strove to build with 'local' materials and employed local<BR>
> craftsmen to build the subassemblies like doors and windows we'd be a lot<BR>
> further ahead?<BR>
><BR>
> I agree if the cement plant is next door one should go whole hog for Le<BR>
> Corbusier, but what other specific examples can you think of that contravene<BR>
> this idea that the impact is magnified by sourcing materials from further<BR>
> away?<BR>
><BR>
> The point could also go beyond reduced embodied energy to re-localizing<BR>
> skills and re-building infrastructure locally that would allow a builder to<BR>
> avoid importing kiln dried 1x4s from several states away, for instance.<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Corwyn <<a href="corwyn@midcoast.com">corwyn@midcoast.com</a>> wrote:<BR>
>><BR>
>> I think it misses the point. The point is reduce embodied energy. 100<BR>
>> miles is not a good proxy for that. Material's embodied energy matters even<BR>
>> if it is made next door. Some transportation is much less energy intensive<BR>
>> than others. And so on. Focus on the actual problem, otherwise you give<BR>
>> those who want to hoodwink you something to hide behind.<BR>
>><BR>
><BR>
> _______________________________________________<BR>
> Greenbuilding mailing list<BR>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<BR>
> <a href="Greenbuilding@bioenergylists.org">Greenbuilding@bioenergylists.org</a><BR>
><BR>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<BR>
> <a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org</a> <BR>
<BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
Greenbuilding mailing list<BR>
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<BR>
<a href="Greenbuilding@bioenergylists.org">Greenbuilding@bioenergylists.org</a><BR>
<BR>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<BR>
<a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org</a> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR>
<BR>
<HR ALIGN=CENTER SIZE="3" WIDTH="95%"></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Consolas, Courier New, Courier"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'>_______________________________________________<BR>
Greenbuilding mailing list<BR>
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<BR>
<a href="Greenbuilding@bioenergylists.org">Greenbuilding@bioenergylists.org</a><BR>
<BR>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<BR>
<a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org</a><BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>