[Greenbuilding] "Its a sort of Fuzzy Green Colour"
Colin Smith
magicol at philcom.ph
Sat Aug 5 19:51:53 CDT 2006
Fascinating exchange with such well written thought provoking posts.
I come down strongly on the Fuzzy side of the fence, although I can't
convince myself that such a divide actually exists.
John Salmen says "The environmental response is an odd one in that it
crosses boundaries and has yet to find a repository. It has no place in
commerce as its goal is not to maximize wealth".....
Doesn't that depend upon the time scale considered? In the short term maybe
but a sustainable system that just keeps on going has to produce more
benefits, in the long term, than a system that will burn itself out in a
relatively short time.
Maybe it is Commerce that needs to change its logic?
And "It has not yet found its way into religion as it's
Antithetical to belief"...
I admit I had to look up 'antithetical' to be certain of its meaning. And I
came up with such synonyms as adversative, opposing and hostile.
I don't agree that it is or certainly should be in conflict with Religious
thought, practices or institutions. (As always we have the problem to try
and define "religion", or any other term we might use and comment on.)
John I am not trying to be argumentative or negative in any way, just
debating and hoping responses will add to my understanding.
Colin in Cagayan De Oro, Southern Philippines, where we have been trying to
meet the challenges of Fuzzy Green Building in our house renovations. For
Example we used split bamboo for concrete reinforcing wherever we could.
The local Catholic Priest is going to bless the house in a few weeks ...
Should I tell him it's OK?? (Please forgive my attempt at humour!)
-----Original Message-----
From: greenbuilding-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:greenbuilding-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of
greenbuilding-request at listserv.repp.org
Sent: Sunday, 6 August 2006 1:00 AM
To: greenbuilding at listserv.repp.org
Subject: Greenbuilding Digest, Vol 2, Issue 6
Send Greenbuilding mailing list submissions to
greenbuilding at listserv.repp.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_listserv.repp.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
greenbuilding-request at listserv.repp.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
greenbuilding-owner at listserv.repp.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Greenbuilding digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: reaching conclusions (Philip Proefrock)
2. Re: reaching conclusions (Jeannie)
3. Questions I couldn't answer: please help? (Jessica Woolliams)
4. Re: Questions I couldn't answer: please help? (Keith Winston)
5. Re: reaching conclusions (John Salmen)
6. FW: reaching conclusions / words and meanings (Alan Abrams)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 15:02:46 -0400
From: "Philip Proefrock" <pproefrock at lzarch.com>
Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] reaching conclusions
To: <greenbuilding at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID: <E0F21CE2B1F3D7119CB400C04F59FE75023305 at SERVER>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I absolutely believe that "Greenness" is fuzzy.
Diversity is as much a green concept as any. To try to focus on some kind
of final, correct answer seems to me to be completely misguided. You are
only going to get a specific answer if you ask a specific question, and
"Which is the greenest?" is a pretty broad question. Diversity allows for
multiple answers, rather than insisting that everything conform to a single,
limited standard.
The statement "The issue of cost is of course a non issue as the building
even at twice the cost of any other building will of course if more energy
efficient recoup any expense eventually," is misguided. One material may
cost twice as much as another, but have no bearing on the energy efficiency
of a building. Whether a basement column is wood or steel has virtually no
energy cost to the building. There are different production and delivery
energy and environmental costs for those two options. Many of the materials
that go into a building are effectively energy neutral to the operation of
the building; the selection of one over another has a negligible effect on
the energy neds for the building. Recycled gyp board costs a bit more than
standard gyp board, but it performs the same thermally. The building owner
will never recoup the additional cost in energy savings.
What standard of greenness are we talking about? To take one example, I
think many would agree that indoor air quality is one metric of green
construction. But is it greener to provide every dwelling with a filtration
and ventillation system in order to provide the cleanest indoor air quality,
or is it greener to provide those only to the homes of allergy sufferers and
others who need the advanced filtration, and allow other homes to have open
windows. Better indoor air quality is greener, but providing it in only
some homes is less taxing on resources than trying to provide it everywhere.
Being less green in some cases ends up being more green in the aggregate.
I don't think green building is ever going to be a single set of absolute
answers. Construction is always going to involve disruption to the
environment in one manner or another. So every decision that goes into a
building project is a compromise between what is needed to create a building
and causing disruption of the natural environment. It's the balance of
choices you make, and that is inherently fuzzy and imprecise.
Philip Proefrock
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 15:22:59 -0400
From: "Jeannie" <jeannie at babb.com>
Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] reaching conclusions
To: <pproefrock at lzarch.com>, <greenbuilding at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID: <ASHtto4jbmpvOTwjBTl000008e5 at redbud.comax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Very well said. I think you could polish this into a little article.
Much applause,
Jeannie Babb Taylor
www.SafeCrete.com
706-965-4587
-----Original Message-----
From: greenbuilding-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:greenbuilding-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Philip
Proefrock
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 3:03 PM
To: greenbuilding at listserv.repp.org
Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] reaching conclusions
I absolutely believe that "Greenness" is fuzzy.
Diversity is as much a green concept as any. To try to focus on some kind
of final, correct answer seems to me to be completely misguided. You are
only going to get a specific answer if you ask a specific question, and
"Which is the greenest?" is a pretty broad question. Diversity allows for
multiple answers, rather than insisting that everything conform to a single,
limited standard.
The statement "The issue of cost is of course a non issue as the building
even at twice the cost of any other building will of course if more energy
efficient recoup any expense eventually," is misguided. One material may
cost twice as much as another, but have no bearing on the energy efficiency
of a building. Whether a basement column is wood or steel has virtually no
energy cost to the building. There are different production and delivery
energy and environmental costs for those two options. Many of the materials
that go into a building are effectively energy neutral to the operation of
the building; the selection of one over another has a negligible effect on
the energy neds for the building. Recycled gyp board costs a bit more than
standard gyp board, but it performs the same thermally. The building owner
will never recoup the additional cost in energy savings.
What standard of greenness are we talking about? To take one example, I
think many would agree that indoor air quality is one metric of green
construction. But is it greener to provide every dwelling with a filtration
and ventillation system in order to provide the cleanest indoor air quality,
or is it greener to provide those only to the homes of allergy sufferers and
others who need the advanced filtration, and allow other homes to have open
windows. Better indoor air quality is greener, but providing it in only
some homes is less taxing on resources than trying to provide it everywhere.
Being less green in some cases ends up being more green in the aggregate.
I don't think green building is ever going to be a single set of absolute
answers. Construction is always going to involve disruption to the
environment in one manner or another. So every decision that goes into a
building project is a compromise between what is needed to create a building
and causing disruption of the natural environment. It's the balance of
choices you make, and that is inherently fuzzy and imprecise.
Philip Proefrock
_______________________________________________
Greenbuilding email list
List info:
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_listserv.repp.org
List email: Greenbuilding at listserv.repp.org
Managed by BuildingGreen, Inc. http://www.buildinggreen.com
publisher of Environmental Building News and GreenSpec(r)
Hosted and archived by REPP / CREST http://www.crest.org
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 14:30:46 -0700
From: Jessica Woolliams <jessica at sustainablebuildingcentre.com>
Subject: [Greenbuilding] Questions I couldn't answer: please help?
To: "greenbuilding at listserv.repp.org"
<greenbuilding at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID: <C0F90A96.BBF9%jessica at sustainablebuildingcentre.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Hi all,
I recently had a class of 15 students in here and they asked some green
building questions I couldn't answer. I would be grateful for any help on
them, and if anyone can post their answer on our website, all the better.
I?ve made an attempt to answer most of them online in the forums section:
<http://www.sustainablebuildingcentre.com/forum>.
I would really encourage you all to go into the Sustainable Building
Centre?s forums and both ask new questions and answer other people?s
questions there. Below are the forums in which I tried to answer the
specific questions your students brought up.
* QU: It is illegal to build a cob building in Canada? In the City of
Vancouver? Is it against the by-laws?
* ANS:
<http://www.sustainablebuildingcentre.com/forum-topic/qu_is_cob_building_all
owed_by_zoning_regulations_in_canada>
* QU: What should you do with the water that you clean your brushes with it
you are using a water-soluble paint ? a latex paint.
* ANS:
<http://www.sustainablebuildingcentre.com/forum-topic/qu_what_should_i_do_wi
th_the_water_i_use_to_wash_my_paintbrushes_in>
* QU: Are composting toilets legal in cities?
* ANS:
<http://www.sustainablebuildingcentre.com/forum-topic/qu_are_composting_toil
ets_legal_in_cities>
* QU: Are there any halogen or incandescent lights that are as energy
efficient as fluorescents?
* ANS:
<http://www.sustainablebuildingcentre.com/forum-topic/qu_are_there_any_halog
en_or_incandescent_lights_that_are_as_efficient_as_fluorescent>
Thanks,
Jessica Woolliams
Director of Programs
Sustainable Building Centre
1575 Johnston Street, Vancouver
In the heart of Granville Island
t: 604 682 5960 f: 604 682 5961
V6H 3R9 Canada
http://www.sustainablebuildingcentre.com
Closing the Loop: SBC?s newest exhibition opens July 26 2006
http://www.fwsustainabledesign.ca
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 23:09:26 -0400
From: Keith Winston <keith at earthsunenergy.com>
Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] Questions I couldn't answer: please help?
To: Greenbuilder list <greenbuilding at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID: <44D40BE6.2090202 at earthsunenergy.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Oh well, I can only answer one reliably and off the top of my head
(though I could wax poetically about composting toilets!)...
> * QU: Are there any halogen or incandescent lights that are as energy
> efficient as fluorescents?
> * ANS:
>
<http://www.sustainablebuildingcentre.com/forum-topic/qu_are_there_any_halog
> en_or_incandescent_lights_that_are_as_efficient_as_fluorescents?
>
No. Although it's a little tricky: efficiency in lighting pertains to
whether the lighting serves your purpose, and is simultaneously less
energy-intensive than other choices. Compact fluorescents tend to use
about 20% of the energy of incandescents. A great list of the
lumens/watt of most common lightbulbs can be found on (where else?)
wikipedia (wow I like that thing!):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lighting_efficiency
But the misleading thing is, LED's for example put out a fairly focused
beam, which (if it serves your purpose) may do more with less: if you
don't need to illuminate the entire room, then they might be far more
efficient than they appear (about 1/2 - 1/3 as efficient as
fluorescents, for white LED's).
Keith
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 23:38:42 -0700
From: John Salmen <terrain at shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] reaching conclusions
To: pproefrock at lzarch.com, greenbuilding at listserv.repp.org
Message-ID: <0J3I00FBEIGJ4730 at l-daemon>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
I like your comments and it inspired me to add a few.
Building 'green' has always been an oxymoron. Anyone involved in the
'profession' has probably felt the contradiction strongly. I'm sure most
would agree that it is far easier and perhaps more appropriate to discuss
environmental building than to actually detail it and have it constructed.
Environmental building is an attempt at a structured response to the
question of 'survival' in terms of habitat specifically and as a general
response to life. The environmental question in general is still vague and
so is the response. World culture still has some predominant authoritative
systems in place to deal with daily questions of survival; commerce,
religion, politics and environmental strategies for survival still have to
find a place within these systems.
The environmental response is an odd one in that it crosses boundaries and
has yet to find a repository. It has no place in commerce as its goal is not
to maximize wealth, It has not yet found its way into religion as its
antithetical to belief and it can't play a strong role in the day to day
exigencies that politics controls.
I feel I can make these comments because I've been involved in designing
green buildings for what seems a long time but it remains a fairly isolated
activity within the mainstream and so remains as you have said a 'fairly
imprecise and fuzzy activity'.
Best
John
TERRAIN E.D.S.
4465 UPHILL RD
DUNCAN BC
CAN V9L 6M7
PH 250-748-7672 FAX 250-748-7612 CELL 250-246-8541
terrain at shaw.ca
I had three pieces of limestone on my desk, but I was terrified to find that
they required to be dusted daily, when the furniture of my mind was all
undusted still, and threw them out the window in disgust --Henry David
Thoreau
-----Original Message-----
From: greenbuilding-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:greenbuilding-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Philip
Proefrock
Sent: August 4, 2006 12:03 PM
To: greenbuilding at listserv.repp.org
Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] reaching conclusions
I absolutely believe that "Greenness" is fuzzy.
Diversity is as much a green concept as any. To try to focus on some kind
of final, correct answer seems to me to be completely misguided. You are
only going to get a specific answer if you ask a specific question, and
"Which is the greenest?" is a pretty broad question. Diversity allows for
multiple answers, rather than insisting that everything conform to a single,
limited standard.
The statement "The issue of cost is of course a non issue as the building
even at twice the cost of any other building will of course if more energy
efficient recoup any expense eventually," is misguided. One material may
cost twice as much as another, but have no bearing on the energy efficiency
of a building. Whether a basement column is wood or steel has virtually no
energy cost to the building. There are different production and delivery
energy and environmental costs for those two options. Many of the materials
that go into a building are effectively energy neutral to the operation of
the building; the selection of one over another has a negligible effect on
the energy neds for the building. Recycled gyp board costs a bit more than
standard gyp board, but it performs the same thermally. The building owner
will never recoup the additional cost in energy savings.
What standard of greenness are we talking about? To take one example, I
think many would agree that indoor air quality is one metric of green
construction. But is it greener to provide every dwelling with a filtration
and ventillation system in order to provide the cleanest indoor air quality,
or is it greener to provide those only to the homes of allergy sufferers and
others who need the advanced filtration, and allow other homes to have open
windows. Better indoor air quality is greener, but providing it in only
some homes is less taxing on resources than trying to provide it everywhere.
Being less green in some cases ends up being more green in the aggregate.
I don't think green building is ever going to be a single set of absolute
answers. Construction is always going to involve disruption to the
environment in one manner or another. So every decision that goes into a
building project is a compromise between what is needed to create a building
and causing disruption of the natural environment. It's the balance of
choices you make, and that is inherently fuzzy and imprecise.
Philip Proefrock
_______________________________________________
Greenbuilding email list
List info:
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_listserv.repp.org
List email: Greenbuilding at listserv.repp.org
Managed by BuildingGreen, Inc. http://www.buildinggreen.com
publisher of Environmental Building News and GreenSpec(r)
Hosted and archived by REPP / CREST http://www.crest.org
__________ NOD32 1.1691 (20060803) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2006 11:51:19 -0400
From: "Alan Abrams" <alan at abramsdesignbuild.com>
Subject: [Greenbuilding] FW: reaching conclusions / words and
meanings
To: "'Greenbuilder list'" <greenbuilding at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID: <002801c6b8a6$fe18adf0$6401a8c0 at Clementine>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Abrams [mailto:alan at abramsdesignbuild.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 11:51 AM
To: 'John Salmen'
Subject: reaching conclusions / words and meanings
>>>>>>>>>>
I absolutely believe that "Greenness" is fuzzy.
Diversity is as much a green concept as any. To try to focus on some kind
of final, correct answer seems to me to be completely misguided. You are
only going to get a specific answer if you ask a specific question, and
"Which is the greenest?" is a pretty broad question. Diversity allows for
multiple answers, rather than insisting that everything conform to a single,
limited standard.
<<<<<<
Perhaps the word "green" too much connotes guidelines and certifications,
which by their nature tend to be orthodoxies. If so, the word "sustainable"
may be more meaningful for defining goals and objectives, methods and
materials.
Alan Abrams
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Greenbuilding email list
List info:
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_listserv.repp.org
List email: Greenbuilding at listserv.repp.org
Managed by BuildingGreen, Inc. http://www.buildinggreen.com
publisher of Environmental Building News and GreenSpec(r)
Hosted and archived by REPP / CREST http://www.crest.org
End of Greenbuilding Digest, Vol 2, Issue 6
*******************************************
More information about the Greenbuilding
mailing list