<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [Greenbuilding] 100 miles builds</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>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.ca">archilogic@yahoo.ca</a>> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Consolas, Courier New, Courier"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'>On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 08:48:10 -0500, Corwyn <<a href="corwyn@midcoast.com">corwyn@midcoast.com</a>> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
><BR>
> Put another way, a ton of polystyrene shipped by container ship from <BR>
> Savannah GA, to Portland ME would be less embodied energy in transport <BR>
> than a ton of straw at a farm 15 miles away that I have to pick up <BR>
> myself in my car.<BR>
><BR>
> See what I mean?<BR>
><BR>
>> It gets people thinking about the issue of impact/footprint/etc.<BR>
><BR>
> But does it? I suspect rather that it gives them a simple rule of thumb <BR>
> which they can use INSTEAD of thinking.<BR>
><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
I've not gone back in the archives to see the roots of the conversation <BR>
above but I can see some flaws in the above "thinking".<BR>
<BR>
While it may be true that sending a ton of something by ship from S to P <BR>
may involve less transport energy than picking up some locally-produced <BR>
item using one's car, the material coming by ship would still first need <BR>
to get from the factory to the ship at point S, probably by truck, and <BR>
then from the ship at point P to some distribution centre, again by truck, <BR>
and then from the distribution centre to the supplier again by truck and <BR>
then from the supplier to the site,with yet another truck trip and who <BR>
knows how many Hyster trips in between each of the above.<BR>
<BR>
There are very few cases where the transportation energy for long distance <BR>
shipping is actually less than that for locally-produced materials.<BR>
<BR>
This is aside from the issues surrounding why something from far away may <BR>
be so much cheaper to buy making it attractive enough to consider, than <BR>
something that is locally produced.<BR>
<BR>
As a "for instance"...<BR>
<BR>
If one goes into one of the major national supermarket chain stores here <BR>
in Ottawa, one will find produce and meat sourced from US producers <BR>
selling at prices that are cheaper than in those in another grocery store <BR>
that sources the same items from Canadian farmers.<BR>
<BR>
Someone interested only in price would opt for the cheaper US-produced <BR>
items from the national chain store. Someone interested in quality of <BR>
goods, ethical farming practices, fair treatment of suppliers, etc, would <BR>
likely opt for the slightly more costly locally-sourced items.<BR>
<BR>
While it is true that there are always exceptions to generalisations (as <BR>
is any Rule of Thumb) which will render that generalisation false, I <BR>
suspect that when using the "300 km radius" or the "100 mile (160 km) <BR>
radius" Rule of Thumb, the exceptions will be few enough to make it a <BR>
useful "first glance" evaluation tool.<BR>
<BR>
If the specific case warrants a closer second look to see whether it <BR>
deserves an exclusion from the Rule of Thumb, then there's nothing that <BR>
prevents one from doing so, as far as I'm aware.<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>