The current state of information about green building materials and practices seems to be all over the board. Is it green, isn’t it green, is it dark green, light, or medium?
There’s lots of information all over the web and in magazines and books. I just noticed that the newest issue of Vanity Fair magazine is calling itself the “Green Issue” or some such happy horses**t.
I guess I want to know two things from you breaktimers: (1) Is this just the latest way for manufacturers to make a buck? (BASF the chemical giant says it is going green, and the local Walwart store is going to have a green section. Next thing you know there’ll be green hi-test gas from Exxon/Mobil.)
And (2) is there a undeniably truthful source for information about green building? Where is the best place to go for info?
Thanks, Greengiant
Replies
The term green, to me, has come to represent everything from alternative fuels to healthy diets. It's widely encompassing and I'm sure ten different people are going to give you ten different opinions on their perception of "green".
I see it as natural products and energy efficiency. Biodiesel, solar power, hybrid cars, etc.
"Green" is one of those terms, like "health food", or "high fiber" (high FUBAR?), or "natural", or "organic". Can be something good, but way too much of the time it is only a marketing gimic. Need to define terms, but then it gets complicated. I think "green" may have something to do with the "long green" it's going to take to buy it!
Green unlike Organic, at this time has no - nasty word - "legal" definition. At least not yest. If someone lkabels something as organic, they are required by the feds to have met certain standards.
Green can mean almost anything - biofuel, recycled plastic made into building products, wind or solar or geothermal power.
In general I think of it as something that uses -
a: an alternative to non-renewable resources
b: significantly less of a non-renewable resource when that resource has to be used.
c: recycled products as opposed to new - even if they are renewable.
d: or helps to better the environment and the community or society.1 - measure the board twice, 2 - cut it once, 3 - measure the space where it is supposed to go 4 - get a new board and go back to step 1
Just got latest issue of "Dwell" magazine. I am letting my subscription expire because I find their whole philosophy sort of repellent, pretentious--like the ad that says "You drive a Benz. Why settle for standard in your bath?"
Anyway, the magazine does have a good article starting on page 200 called "Being Green 101."
This is a great conversation guys/gals - it's really interesting to sit back and realize that the definition of "green" is so nebulus! Let's hear some more opinions, this thread might find it's way into the magazine.Justin Fink - FHB Editorial
Man, you shut that discussion down right quick. Now we all gotta think of something real profound to say, lest it gets put down in permanent ink.zak
"so it goes"
Your question reminds me of another thread, perhaps last summer. One of the contractors here was questioning the use of the phrase "top pay" in classified ads for help.
It's kinda like those real estate ads that tout "beautiful and spacious country estate living, just minutes from everywhere".
Soon both of those examples will be touting the green-ness of the advertised item.
Unless you're the lead dog, the view just never changes.
I only sleep on pillows made from the down of free range chickens.
Are you saying you dont sleep on pillows???????Live by the sword, die by the sword...choose your sword wisely.
The reason they don't charge for the free ones is that they don't feed them. The poor chickens have to wander around, finding food on their own. That's why their free. They're so thin and they have so little meat that they can't sell them.The range chickens that you buy are meatier and have better down than the free ones.The meatier ones that you pay for are sort of soft and also make a nice pillow. Remove the skin first, though.
You get down from geese and feathers from chickens.
down from geese and feathers from chickens
Well, yeah, nobody much wants chicken down . . .
It does exists, though, as does turkey down, penguin down, even hummingbird down--feathered creatures have down. Waterfowl happen to have down that traps air for bouyancy & to prevent waterlogging. Not much down on a duck; folk get sappy about swans; just had to find anybody tough enough to 'farm' loons--that makes geese the most economical source for down.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Truthful?
Use local, renewable materials. Recycle stuff that is already manufactured/built as much as possible.
Those are two ways you know you're doing Green. Beyond that, maybe someone else knows :D
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
"Use local, renewable materials. Recycle stuff that is already manufactured/built as much as possible."But is that as "green" as the house built using non-renewable, non-recycable foam, but uses 1/4 of the on going energy as the one desscribed above?
I'm not advocating building an inefficient house. Just saying, locally produced materials, recycled materials are the lowest environmental impact. Obviously building an uninsulated house out of recycled barn boards is not particularly green unless you are, say, burning garbage for heat ;)-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
Or self generated methane? LOL1 - measure the board twice, 2 - cut it once, 3 - measure the space where it is supposed to go 4 - get a new board and go back to step 1
Environmental Building News was a great resource when I used to subscribe, and hopefully still is.They really go into the details of energy use, embodied energy, manufacturing impacts and social ramifications of various materials, products, and methods that pertain to our industry. Highly recommended for the sincere idealist who also needs to be practical.Green is marketed a lot because the truly "green" products have to educate the consumer about the higher first costs, and the charlatans ride their coattails.Bill
I think the OP is being a bit naive if he thinks there's an "undeniably truthful source of information" out there about much of anything.
Programs like LEED and Southface's Earthcraft for homebuilding and remodeling are about making choices/tradeoffs in materials and construction details. Both have point systems and thresholds for certification. But there are a lot of options in a lot of different areas (energy, water, waste reduction, etc) for how to meet the minimum requirements.
In an ideal world, someone who values being "green" in a given project would try to weigh the life cycle cost and environmental impact of the material selections to determine whether the payback was acceptable or the impact reduced enough to make the choice worthwhile. That's no easy task. Not to mention trying to incorporate reducing waste into the design, or even going so far as to grind/use wood and/or drywall waste on site rather than landfill.
And it doesn't address the aesthetic issues that rule for many.
It's easy to oversimplify the issue and dismiss it, but there are a lot of good reasons not to.
One April I read an article in the American Airlines magazine an article about this architect in Austin TX who had built himself a green home. He was collecting his own rainwater and everything. The home was 5000 sq ft and he lived alone.
an article about this architect in Austin TX ... home was 5000 sq ft and he lived alone
Several "hot button" green issues there. Have to wonder on how big a lot the 5000sf was "put." If that's on a one-acre site out of the City Limits, that's pretty proportional.
You need about an acre for a rainwater/runoff collection system, too. Which is chicken-egg-chicken. The rocky soil limits where you can bury tanks for the water. The rocky soil limits where the muni water goes. The further from muni water you are, the more you need a collection system.
Now, a person can actually make the case that all building in the Travis County area is not "green" from all of the work it takes to install municipal utilities (the 36" wide, rotary-bucket trencher to cut 50-60" deep into solid stone to lay watermains does not come cheap).
The development rules are restrictive too. If you wish to get your proposed development passed, you have to estimate not the nest development after yours, but the one after that. That sized all of the utilities to be run into your development. You get to pay for them, even if no one is, ah, er, 'clever' enough to build on the other side of your subdivision. Yet, they do. (Subdivisions are sprouting on 35 al lthe way to Roundrock & Georgetown, and out 290 most of the way to Manor.)Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
is that as "green" as
Which also begs the question of "Is it beter to build a house that will stand a hundred years, but be inefficient; or to knock one together that only lasts 20 years, but has the latest in insulation, energy, etc., in it?"
I don't have an answer for that, just noting that the question can be posed that way. It's very hard to look back and get a good answer, either. A hundred years ago you didn't need a temporary pole to build a house. Probably a third of the materials were horse-drawn for some portion of their production. No job site electricity, low combustible fuel use for transportation is "green," now. But, more labor-hours were needed overall, too; local resources would be over-used, too--neither of those is very "green."
Now, in a perfect world, "we" could probably make construction a bit more "green" over all. Things like using more cemtitious materials. Or, if someone finds the "magic bullet" that lets us foam cellulose into dimensional lumber substitute. That, is one of those "teasing" ideas that can annoy in being "not quite likely."
Now, foamed cellulose needs two things we don't have. One is the binding agent which is not a catalyized petrochemical "glue" or resin. The other is a volitile agent which is 'neutral' (and also "works").
It's a cool thought--extruded stock, straight, true, no wane, no bad finger joints, or funky treatments; all with near-entire use of fast-growing "weed" trees. Which "saves" good lumber for trim and visible applications.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Last month I attended the National Association of Home Builders Green Building Conference in Albuquerque, NM. NAHB, by the way, also has a green building program and a builder ceritifcation course. I sat in on one day of the course, toured some of the area's Green homes and spent the rest of the time in seminars ranging from passive cooling strategies to marketing green homes.
Like most of you, before the conference I assumed green building was mostly about sustainability and environmentally-friendly products. While choosing the right products (mostly based on life-cycle analysis) is part of the picture, it was only a small part of the discussions at the conference. And sustainability, maybe the goal for some, is more the result of the building strategies discussed than the focus.
Energy-efficiency, moisture and water management, ventilation, passive heating and cooling, and OVE framing, were among the dominant topics. Sure, many of these practice result in a more sustainable building, but there are also other reasons why a homeowner would want to live in a green home. Maybe they want to cut their utility bills to save money, want better indoor air quality for thier children, or simply want a more comfortable home in cold or hot climates.
Anyway, I left with two thoughts about the subject. First "green" is a terrible word to describe what I learned about. For some it conjures up images of hippies in mud huts, for others it means spending more $ (BTW, the green production builders that I spoke with say that once they get efficient at building green, their houses cost them no more to build than the houses they were building befrore they went green). The truth is that few people understand what green building is coming to mean: better homes. Many of you are probably already building green, without realizing it. Secondly, I sure hope green building can build momentum, because regardless of the term, it is a big improvement over most of the new homes being built today.
I learned a ton at the conference and would encourage anyone interested in this topic to think about attending next year. You can doewnload NAHB's guidelines for free at http://www.nahb.org
Cheers,
Brian Pontolilo, associate editor
Hey Brian- Thanks for the info about the various certification stuff, etc. I'm hoping that your attending that conference means that you'll be writing about it in FHB- I think it would be great to have an overview of "green building" once in a while. I understand what you mean by green building = quality building, and I know that FHB covers all sorts of quality building, but it seems like there is room for an outline article every once in a while, something that brings up new ideas/techniques, and reports on trends among the existing ones. zak
"so it goes"
I did attend the conference because we think FHB should be taking an active approach to covering green building. After a day in the certification course however, I realized that we've been covering it all along. Not just the green houses that we publish, but the articles on housewrap, ventilation, moisture control, etc. We don't slug those articles "green building" but they were the most common topics of discussion at the conference. The instructor even referenced Joe Lstiburek's article on more efficient framing techniques as a "great source of information."
You're right though Zak, we should probably do some articles that explain green building principles, and help to define "green." I'd also like to see us do a head to head comparison of the national green building programs as they emerge and mature.
Cheers,
Brian
Like someone else said, I hope you'll write something about it. You can definitely count me in as one who thinks "green" building is just a feel-good buzz word with no real meaning. So if you can come up with some intelligent thoughs about the subject I'd be all for it.
Don't hate yourself in the morning -- sleep till noon.
Green to me means cut it down green 'cause the bark strips easier,
and for everything else, the green stays in the wallet to the max.
Most of the actual mag writtings on the subject are intoned with 'toni', 'feel good', and 'yuppie' sentiments.
One prev. poster did have a good explanation of the maybe true intent of the term ; 'hippie shack out of all salvage, etc. , -- e.g no or little heat, water from the creek, etc.
Last month I attended the National Association of Home Builders Green Building Conference...
That sounded very interesting. I have no semantic problem with "green" but what qualifies will vary immensely depending on audience.
Even though I've been living in a passively heated/cooled home for the last decade, those hippies in mud huts that I hang out with on alternative architecture lists believe that even though my performance is exemplary, my use of concrete is not. There's a point there with co2 emissions and embodied energy. Doesn't bother me as greenness is a continuum. I get a lot of side requests for information which I'm happy to promote. A major tradeoff is keeping labor costs down.
Recently heard from a very active west coast concrete acquaintance suggesting how I could further my marketing and get a larger share. That's not of any interest to me. I like what I'm doing. Know my limitations.
My first commercial experience, a client house, was building a 26000 cu ft house for substantially less than conventional construction. Passively heated and cooled. Even the large steel roof structure (40' span supporting 300 tons) shocked the crane guy with its affordability. The appraiser ignored the energy features and still came in 50% over construction cost. This (financing) had been a major worry, no longer. Their house, like mine, requires no exterior maintenance, other than preventing tree growth on the roof, and never gets cold or hot, requiring nothing from the occupants.
Passive ventilation works, but frightens me in a humid climate. So I don't. But a small air system gives us extremely good quality for well under the extra cost of operable windows.
Brian, you're on the money about better homes. PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
Some of "green" building just involves common sense and not having to have what the Jones's have. For a long time, everyone had to have a huge "picture window" looking out on the street. Didn't matter if the view was crappy, didn't matter if the window faced north. Just putting the house on the site so it's oriented to take advantage of solar heat gain is simple, but I very seldom see any builder do it. Things like overhangs and trees are rarely considered.
Edit: To be truely green, I think "stick-built" building on the site has to become a thing of the past. Houses, or at least big sections of them should be engineered and built in factories and shipped to the site where they are assembled. I read again recently in a mag something I said when I was a framer--to build something fairly well and then watch while the plumber, heating guy, electrician and so on come through and progressively whittle away at what was built just seems stupid. All those sytems should be planned and integrated into the structure. My friend built an addition, cut out most of the joists for his heating ducts, then decided the old furnace wasn't big enough and instead of forced air, replaced it with a hot water system, so all those holes and all that sheet metal was wasted.
Edited 5/6/2006 9:15 am ET by Danno
we have sprayed cellulose here in Canada and I know you have it in the US also. You can put it in damp with just water added and let it dry.
Edited 5/4/2006 11:39 pm ET by experienced
we have sprayed cellulose here in Canada and I know you have it in the US also
Ah, yes, for insulation--and that's a good product, high in recyclable content, too.
But, the product I was referring to is new. This would be a solid extruded cellulose foam product which would replace sawn lumber. The material density is no sweat, to make a product that takes fasteners and cuts like wood. The "trick" of it is in making it a "good" product--which has two faces. One, it can't be much more than 1.5x the price of sawn lumber or steel. Two, it can't "dangerous," or rare, or expensive, components to manufacture (or emit anythign the least bit noxious, nasty, or toxic in cutting ot use, either).
There's some on-going research (with a handfull of dissertations on the line) using cellulose fibre, natural resins, and alcohol fixed.
It's "sexy" stuff to contemplate. A true 2x4, that is also straight, with no twists or knots, and still a natural product. Oh, and there's no need for additional milling, the stick would come out of the extruder at a stud-grade S4S.
It's an intriguing thought--coming up with a way to "need" sawn lumber for visible applications. Or, for structural purposes, like timber frames--which are a very efficient way to use sawn lumber.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
It might be green, but it usually isn't cost effective.
"When asked if you can do something, tell'em "Why certainly I can", then get busy and find a way to do it." T. Roosevelt
Give me brown. Green takes too much "green".
IMHO:
1) companies will sieze upon any bit of branding that they can to get more market share, profit, whatever. As someone who likes the concept of "green" building, I can accept that it is the american way to seek profit without having all the right reasons. It's good that's wal-mart is using renewable energy in some of it's stores, but for the most part I try to ignore the feeble attempts of these large corporations to paint themselves green. Anybody who wants to be green can do better than being a loyal patron of whole foods or the like
2) I don't think it is even possible to have a perfect information source about sustainability. There are so many different strategies for being green. There is no one right answer to ICF vs. SIP vs. Strawbale, for example. But they are all much better than a 2x4 wall 16" oc, insulated with fiberglass. That ICF vs. SIP vs. Strawbale example I mentioned (and I know that is only a small sample of viable green wall systems), I think factors of site, previous experience, material availability, etc. would be more important decision factors than entombed energy or something.
zak
"so it goes"
The LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmetal Design) is being set up to address these issues and more- durability, embodied energy, renewable source such as trees, re-cyclable, etc.
Another good reference is Environmental Building News
Edited 5/2/2006 10:48 pm ET by experienced
sheesh, i thought it was about the money.
MONEY GREEN..
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming
WOW!!! What a Ride!
Forget the primal scream, just ROAR!!!
there already is green diesel...
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming
WOW!!! What a Ride!
Forget the primal scream, just ROAR!!!
How about this for green...
I lost a $9000.00 flooring job a couple weeks ago because the jerk I was bidding against claimed to use "100% green building materials whenever and wherever possible." I'm pretty sure his bid was higher, too.
I'm probably the jerk for not thinking of it first, though, these folks both drove Volvo's.
DCS Inc.
"Whaddya mean I hurt your feelings, I didn't know you had any feelings." Dave Mustaine
That's just unreal. Unless you were proposing laminate floors and nylon carpeting versus his 100% FSC certified native hardwood flooring and locally-made lambswool carpeting, I don't see how that statement of his has any merit. You can't claim 'green' without proof, especially on a flooring job. And besides, trees that produce flooring are organic - ever heard of someone using chemical fertilizers and genetic modification on TREES? At least, trees that are old enough to produce flooring? Unless the guy can prove that the skidder and chainsaws used to harvest the trees were using biodiesel.... or maybe the flooring was harvested by hand with axes and handsaws by workers weraing only natural fabrics.
And since when is Volvo 'green'? The company has a good safety rating and that's IT.
I feel bad for you, but these people oughta know that they were sold a line of horses**t.
You can't claim 'green' without proof, especially on a flooring job.
Sure you can. Has more holes than a colander, but the sales pitch worked.
And since when is Volvo 'green'?
Never was. Still isn't. That's not the point. Buyers of them are going to be attracted to greenness, especially if they aren't practicing. Same is true for Subaru owners. Large generalizations, but very obvious here.
earl06 realized his mistake, if it was one. He was out-sold by a line of bs. He recognized the signs, maybe a little too late. Or his ethics might be a little higher than the guy who won. Always helps to understand your (potential) customer.
PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
and exactly how do you know it was a line of bs? You don't even know what the flooring materials were. There are tons of flooring materials out there with crazy VOC offgassing, glues and chemicals used in manufacture, or harvested using unsustainable practices.there are also many alternatives out there that address that. so how do you know they were not, in fact, being used?Granted, it may have been BS. But it may not. No reason to assume.-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
Here's the quote "I lost a $9000.00 flooring job a couple weeks ago because the jerk I was bidding against claimed to use 100% green building materials whenever and wherever possible."
Seems he was assuming it to be bs. "Whenever and wherever possible" doesn't mean anything. This was a competitive bid. Good reason to assume bs.
Next time try going back to the original post to understand, when you don't, before jumping to conclusions. PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
So he assumed it was BS (and I could read, yes). Doesn't mean it was. Whereever and Whenever possible MIGHT not mean anything. Certainly leaves a lot of leeway. It also very well MIGHT mean something. Depends on the integrity of the bidder.I suppose you can assume that no one has any, if you like. I personally choose not to assume without facts, and there aren't any here, just a post light on details. I guess it's easy to assume though when a post plays to beliefs you already hold, eh?-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
I guess it's easy to assume though when a post plays to beliefs you already hold, eh?
Wrong again. But you're consistent.
I have no reason to not take at face value the original viewpoint. You weren't there either. Why distrust? Perhaps beliefs you already hold? If so, why question me? Go to the source. Tell him you don't believe him. Don't forget to give him the same compelling reasons you gave me.
Good to hear that you can read. You clearly didn't bother to the first time. You obviously know nothing about me, preferring to make ignorant assumptions. PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
That tends to happen when you jump immediately to a condecending response that was completely unwarranted. I didn't jump on the original poster because he lost a $9k bid. I don't expect him to be objective about it. That's called "critical thinking". Give it a shot sometime.-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
One thing I've always wondered about..... where does durability come into the "green" discussion? Living in an area where teardowns are rampant prompts me to wonder about the durability of not only materials used in construction, but the durability of good design and good workmanship.
Like I mentioned further up, life cycle cost is important. To me, 'more durable' means lower maintenance/replacement cost over your time period (20 yrs, 30 yrs, even 50 yrs). Still a bit of a belly rub to figure out how the capital cost increment compares to the maintenance/replacement, though.
FWIW, there are actually low VOC floor finishes in addition to paints. Bona's is called Eon75, but I suspect you might have a hard time finding real-world application or durability info yet.
Had to look up the WSJ article, which is titled "Paint it Green."
We used BM Eco Spec and had little difficulty w/ putting it on. We'll see about the durability. Think it's only available in 1B or 2B, so that doesn't get you the deepest colors (the red in our kitchen is a standard latex). I'm guessing that 'limited colors' means you can get, say, about half of their selections. That's still several hundred.
Cork would also be a renewable/green flooring choice.
"Green" generally means it going to cost you more money. That, and someone is likely to force you to buy it.
If it's printed on the product that it's "green", it's probably more happy horse hooey.
Is there green building? Of course there is. IMO, it's not nearly the materials as much as it is how the materials are put together and how cohesive the future energy use plan is.
My house is built of very ordinary materials, but it is very easy (read: cheap!) to heat and cool.
Big windows on the north in a cold spot, garage door facing west in a hot spot, few south windows where they could help, save now on insulation 'cause energy will be cheap in the future, ignore solar orientation altogether.... surely you get the drift!
"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." Voltaire
My thinking about the sales pitch "Mr. Green" made to Mr. & Mrs. Volvo is that it was BS, at least in this case. I know the suppliers in this area and they don't have any special "green" flooring. It was a sales pitch, a good one, and I concede defeat.
There are developers in this area that tout "green building techniques" get some kind of governmental largesse for complying with energystar ratings and other vaguely defined environmental friendlinesses. They sell out quick and make good money.
There seem to be two kinds of "green" builders: Guys that actually care about the sprit of the concept and guys whose adhere to the letter of it only for profit. Only in a decade or two will we know if any of this actually helps the environment or if it was just a marketing ploy.
DCS Inc.
"Whaddya mean I hurt your feelings, I didn't know you had any feelings." Dave Mustaine
One commonly available "green" flooring would be PTE carpet made from recycles plastic bottles.By many definitions linoleum would also be green.
Bamboo is commonly considered a green flooring material as well. It grows fast, is hard, and there's lots of it. The only drawback is that many companies use formaldehyde glues and some cheaper brands have trouble with offgassing, so to be truly 'green' one has to shop around.
I thought that bamboo flooring didn't require formaldehyde (or other) glue, because the lignins in the bamboo could be activated to laminate the strips. Is this only some bamboo floors?zak
"so it goes"
I've never heard that, and I did quite a bit of research on bamboo flooring several years ago. It's been 4 years since we laid ours down, but at that time 99% of them were formaldehyde glues. And of that 99%, only a few met air quality standards in CA and Europe. Bamboo floors were mostly being made in Asia, where they used the cheapest glue they could get away with. Because we were laying the hard floor in an infant's room for air quality reasons, we had to shop around quite a bit to find a bamboo supplier that did not use formaldehyde glues. At the time, they were the ONLY supplier. Things have probably changed some since then, but never assume that a bamboo floor does not have formaldehyde, or that the offgassing is a 'safe' level, you need to ask.
Well, the other part of it is shipping pallets of bamboo from asia may not be as green as a locally harvested hardwood. Trees do grow back and are renewable, after all. And some companies grow bamboo over here now.-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
Oak tree vs bamboo is 80yrs vs 8yrs, so the shipping is a factor, but it would need to exceed by about 10 times the use of resources to be preferable. Plus, the same bamboo plant can be harvested many times and go into many homes, whereas the oak tree is a one shot deal.
Where I live, it's getting shipped from SOMEWHERE - we don't have trees growing locally. For me the 'greenness' of bamboo is apparent.
That's how long it takes to grow, perhaps. but while it's growing, it's still eating CO2 and generating O2, so it's not like it's *gone* the whole time. You just can't harvest it as fast.Don't get me wrong, I love bamboo, great stuff, and not trying to fault you for using it! Just looking at some of the different issues to think about is all.-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
Another readily available green floor would be the dirt floor, but not too popular (and hard to keep clean, but has the advantage that dirt doesn't show on it.)
Last Sundays paper had an article from the WSJ "It's Not Easy Being Green".It was about "ecofriendly" paints.And mentioned all of the problems with them. Hard to apply, limited colors, and poor durability.Mentioned on company that 2 weeks after having the offices painted spent $16,000 to repaint with other paint.
What about milk paint? That's durable (sometimes too durable, from what I understand from reading about people trying to remove it after decades!) and it's a renewable resource (except for the lime and mineral pigments, I suppose).
Don't you know green & organic are crutch terms for people who recieved a college deploma and were told now they were qualified to make decisions for themselves about anything. Ignore the science I'll believe what I believe.
I do not have a green home. I'm observing that those in their 30's seem more concerned about this issue. To me, it means that they want something that it is environmentally friendly. For example, bamboo flooring is a good green as the resourse renewal cycle is frequent. Cork flooring is considered "green", however, it takes nearly a decade to renew the outer layer on the tree.
I think the issue consists of renewable resources, not old growth forests, for example, nor something that does not biodegrade. My observation is that younger folks are more tuned into the environmental aspects, which I don't discount. But, bottom line, many seem to be willing to elect economics as opposed to the long term "green" benefit. In some cases, I see the point, in others, I wonder if the initial cost of green to end of life of the product ends up "green". For example, the processing of the "green material" could create as much "global warming, for example", as other materials. My observation is that this is more and more becoming and issue and contractors/builders will see a huge demand and should be prepared.
No recourses offered here, sadly, just observation.
P.S. Green building seems more costly, at present, and seems to be the upcoming wave. For example, Ethonal fuel is the big issue at present, so that we are not dependent on current fuel. I think the trend toward this is going to continue, so like it or not, we will adjust as needed. The opportunity still exists, it is just different now. I don't thing the big guys are promoting this, however the demand requires they produce. It is not a win/win to the manufacturers. They must adjust to market demand as well, be it more costly.