Don’t demolish, de-construct November 2, 2008
Posted by bruce mcgranahan in green building, waste reduction.Tags: Construction, Waste
add a comment
Via Solve Climate …
Every year America throws away 250,000 homes.
Bulldozers are knocking down almost 700 houses every day and trucks are carting the demolition debris for burial in landfills all across the country. It’s estimated that 1.2 billion board feet of usable lumber ends up in the garbage, not to mention salvageable hardware, fixtures, wiring, piping, doors and windows.
But a new appreciation of the value of this waste stream is leading to the growth of a nascent industry: deconstruction. In a worsening economy and in the effort to create green jobs for a low-carbon future, deconstruction could prove to be a boom industry — if it wasn’t so cheap to throw things away — creating jobs, recycling valuable materials and recovering and reusing the energy embedded in these existing construction materials… READ MORE
Deconstruct vs. Demolish September 4, 2008
Posted by bruce mcgranahan in green building, waste reduction.Tags: Deconstruction, Demolition, Recycling, Reuse
add a comment
Deconstruction as against demolition offers a way to sustainably harvest a building for raw materials and in effect reduces waste and increases the viability of the materials by bringing them back into the cycle. As against the 65 million tons of waste generated annually courtesy demolition, nearly 24 million tons of materials could be reused and 6 million tons recycled by following deconstruction.
Deconstruction: A More Natural Way to Demolition
Posted at AboutMyPlanet.com by: Saikat in Environment
According to the reuse advocacy website Waste to Wealth, the construction and demolition (C&D) industry disposes of almost 65 million tons of waste annually, much of which is reusable or recyclable. With demolition tons of re-usable materials like timber, bricks, and metal end up as landfill fodder. This is an absolute waste because some components are valuable (like lumber, metals ad even glass) and can be easily recycled. Agreed, demolition is a relatively inexpensive way to bring a building down but it generates tons of waste, some of which may be of more value than when they were initially used.
Does it cost more to NOT build green? August 7, 2008
Posted by bruce mcgranahan in energy, green building, waste reduction.Tags: Energy conservation, Energy Star, green building
1 comment so far
From Green Building Elements
comes the “Costs of NOT Building Green“:
Despite the narrowing gap in cost between green building and traditional “to-code” building, most builders and home buyers still perceive the green option to be significantly more expensive. The reality is that due to increased builder education and an influx of affordable green building products, a building can be built green within the same budget as a non-green building. According to Clark Wilson, CEO of Austin based Green Builders, Inc., “It’s our job as builders to find those green products that don’t drive up the price of the home.” For an informative breakdown on how green buildings cost from 0 to 2% more than non-green buildings, check out “The True Costs of Building Green” from the folks at Buildings.com.
Now that green building is an affordable option, it’s time to change the way we frame the affordability debate. Too long have supporters of green building been on the defensive, forced to justify the costs of building more energy efficient, healthier, more sustainable homes. Instead of focusing on the costs of making your building green, let’s talk about the costs of not building green.
Energy
With the help of the EPA’s ENERGY STAR program, advances in energy efficiency have resulted in savings of 40 to 60% over non-green buildings. Add in the water savings from low-flow fixtures, tankless water heaters, very efficient appliances, greywater systems, water-friendly landscaping, and rainwater collection systems and it’s clear how wasteful a non-green building can be.
Health
Paints, adhesives, and caulks can all contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs,) the greatest causes of indoor air pollution in the home, which have been tied to increased asthma rates. Wood products in the home can contain urea-formaldehyde, a known carcinogen that is banned in Canada and Europe and soon will be on its way out in California. The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory studied indoor air pollution in homes and “found moderate to strong increases in respiratory and allergic health effects among children in homes with higher concentrations of selected VOCs.”The potential health risks of non-green buildings are reason enough for many to choose to build green.
Sustainability
Third in the green trinity is sustainability, the environmental cost of your building project. Green builders start by significantly reducing waste on building sites. While building materials that are not recycled or made from renewable materials might seem less expensive, the cost to the environment must be considered. And it’s not just the sustainability of the product that should be considered, but the company’s manufacturing process as well. Companies that have earned the Cradle to Cradle certification represent the height of sustainability.
Stop trashing the climate July 7, 2008
Posted by bruce mcgranahan in climate change, waste reduction.Tags: climate change, waste reduction
add a comment
Stop Trashing the Climate provides compelling evidence that preventing waste and expanding reuse, recycling, and composting programs — that is, aiming for zero waste — is one of the fastest, cheapest, and most effective strategies available for combating climate change. This report documents the link between climate change and unsustainable patterns of consumption and wasting, dispels myths about the climate benefits of landfill gas recovery and waste incineration, outlines policies needed to effect
change, and offers a roadmap for how to significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within a short period.
Significantly decreasing waste disposed in landfills and incinerators will reduce greenhouse gas emissions the equivalent to closing 21% of U.S. coal-fired power plants. This is comparable to leading climate protection proposals such as improving national vehicle fuel efficiency. Indeed, preventing waste and expanding reuse, recycling, and composting are essential to put us on the path to climate stability.
Download the executive summary (PDF, 2 MB);
- Print quality version (PDF, 10 MB)
Download the full report (PDF, 6 MB)
Download key findings and priority policies as a one-page handout (PDF, 160 KB)

![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=3c9073b7-4321-4487-ad78-89f2482a6170)



