<html>
<body>
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).<br><br>
The socio-political issues (mentioned in Jason's great previous post) are
even more difficult -- if possible at all -- to quantify.<br><br>
David Bergman RA LEED AP<br>
<font size=2 color="#808080"><b>DAVID BERGMAN</b> ARCHITECT / <b>FIRE
& WATER</b> LIGHTING + FURNITURE<br>
</font><font color="#808080">architecture . interiors .
</font><font color="#008080">ecodesign</font><font color="#808080"> .
lighting . furniture<br>
</font><font size=2 color="#808080">bergman@cyberg.com
<a href="http://www.cyberg.com/" eudora="autourl"><u>www.cyberg.com</a>
</u></font><font color="#808080"> <br>
</font><font size=2 color="#808080">241 Eldridge Street #3R, New York, NY
10002<br>
</font><font color="#808080">t </font><font size=2 color="#808080">212
475 3106 f 212 677 7291</font><font color="#808080">
<br><br>
author - Sustainable Design: A Critical Guide<br>
adjunct faculty - Parsons The New School for Design</font> <br><br>
At 11:46 AM 2/25/2012, Jason Holstine wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font face="Calibri">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.<br><br>
<br>
On 2/25/12 11:01 AM, "RT"
<<a href="archilogic@yahoo.htm">archilogic@yahoo.ca</a>>
wrote:<br><br>
</font>
<dl>
<dd><font face="Consolas" size=2>On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 08:48:10 -0500,
Corwyn <<a href="corwyn@midcoast.htm">corwyn@midcoast.com</a>>
wrote:<br><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> Put another way, a ton of polystyrene shipped by container ship
from <br>
<dd>> Savannah GA, to Portland ME would be less embodied energy in
transport <br>
<dd>> than a ton of straw at a farm 15 miles away that I have to pick
up <br>
<dd>> myself in my car.<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> See what I mean?<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>>> It gets people thinking about the issue of
impact/footprint/etc.<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> But does it? I suspect rather that it gives them a simple
rule of thumb <br>
<dd>> which they can use INSTEAD of thinking.<br>
<dd>><br><br>
<br>
<dd>I've not gone back in the archives to see the roots of the
conversation <br>
<dd>above but I can see some flaws in the above
"thinking".<br><br>
<dd>While it may be true that sending a ton of something by ship from S
to P <br>
<dd>may involve less transport energy than picking up some
locally-produced <br>
<dd>item using one's car, the material coming by ship would still first
need <br>
<dd>to get from the factory to the ship at point S, probably by truck,
and <br>
<dd>then from the ship at point P to some distribution centre, again by
truck, <br>
<dd>and then from the distribution centre to the supplier again by truck
and <br>
<dd>then from the supplier to the site,with yet another truck trip and
who <br>
<dd>knows how many Hyster trips in between each of the above.<br><br>
<dd>There are very few cases where the transportation energy for long
distance <br>
<dd>shipping is actually less than that for locally-produced
materials.<br><br>
<dd>This is aside from the issues surrounding why something from far away
may <br>
<dd>be so much cheaper to buy making it attractive enough to consider,
than <br>
<dd>something that is locally produced.<br><br>
<dd>As a "for instance"...<br><br>
<dd>If one goes into one of the major national supermarket chain stores
here <br>
<dd>in Ottawa, one will find produce and meat sourced from US
producers <br>
<dd>selling at prices that are cheaper than in those in another grocery
store <br>
<dd>that sources the same items from Canadian farmers.<br><br>
<dd>Someone interested only in price would opt for the cheaper
US-produced <br>
<dd>items from the national chain store. Someone interested in quality
of <br>
<dd>goods, ethical farming practices, fair treatment of suppliers,
etc, would <br>
<dd>likely opt for the slightly more costly locally-sourced
items.<br><br>
<dd>While it is true that there are always exceptions to generalisations
(as <br>
<dd>is any Rule of Thumb) which will render that generalisation false,
I <br>
<dd>suspect that when using the "300 km radius" or the
"100 mile (160 km) <br>
<dd>radius" Rule of Thumb, the exceptions will be few enough to make
it a <br>
<dd>useful "first glance" evaluation tool.<br><br>
<dd>If the specific case warrants a closer second look to see whether
it <br>
<dd>deserves an exclusion from the Rule of Thumb, then there's nothing
that <br>
<dd>prevents one from doing so, as far as I'm aware.<br><br>
</font>
</dl>_______________________________________________<br>
Greenbuilding mailing list<br>
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br>
Greenbuilding@bioenergylists.org<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" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org</a>
</blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<br>
</body>
</html>