http://greenbuildingelements.com/2008/06/27/the-unexpected-and-questionable-green-products-at-pcbc/ Reporting on Sustainably Built Environments from Bricks to Cities Fri, 03 Feb 2012 01:57:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://greenbuildingelements.com/2008/06/27/the-unexpected-and-questionable-green-products-at-pcbc/comment-page-1/#comment-4389 John Schutt Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:47:30 +0000 http://greenbuildingelements.com/?p=488#comment-4389 Great points in your short article. If we go with the old 3 Rs, Reduce, Re-use, Recycle, then the products mentioned could be "green". But if we move toward cradle to cradle, we can't really think of a wood burning furnace as sustainable, because if everyone was using them, we would run out of forests. Using that same wood to produce products with a much longer lifecycle is a better alternative, and moving towards, wind, solar, and tidal power (all technologically viable, if not yet economically attractive to build)is a "deeper green". Great points in your short article. If we go with the old 3 Rs, Reduce, Re-use, Recycle, then the products mentioned could be “green”. But if we move toward cradle to cradle, we can’t really think of a wood burning furnace as sustainable, because if everyone was using them, we would run out of forests. Using that same wood to produce products with a much longer lifecycle is a better alternative, and moving towards, wind, solar, and tidal power (all technologically viable, if not yet economically attractive to build)is a “deeper green”.

]]> http://greenbuildingelements.com/2008/06/27/the-unexpected-and-questionable-green-products-at-pcbc/comment-page-1/#comment-98139 John Schutt Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:47:00 +0000 http://greenbuildingelements.com/?p=488#comment-98139 Great points in your short article. If we go with the old 3 Rs, Reduce, Re-use, Recycle, then the products mentioned could be "green". But if we move toward cradle to cradle, we can't really think of a wood burning furnace as sustainable, because if everyone was using them, we would run out of forests. Using that same wood to produce products with a much longer lifecycle is a better alternative, and moving towards, wind, solar, and tidal power (all technologically viable, if not yet economically attractive to build)is a "deeper green". Great points in your short article. If we go with the old 3 Rs, Reduce, Re-use, Recycle, then the products mentioned could be “green”. But if we move toward cradle to cradle, we can’t really think of a wood burning furnace as sustainable, because if everyone was using them, we would run out of forests. Using that same wood to produce products with a much longer lifecycle is a better alternative, and moving towards, wind, solar, and tidal power (all technologically viable, if not yet economically attractive to build)is a “deeper green”.

]]> http://greenbuildingelements.com/2008/06/27/the-unexpected-and-questionable-green-products-at-pcbc/comment-page-1/#comment-4382 tset Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:47:21 +0000 http://greenbuildingelements.com/?p=488#comment-4382 I don't agree with the statement that burning wood in a device such as the furnace you describe is the same as operating a vehicle such as a Prius using fossil fuels. If forests are managed and wood from such forests are used for heating (preferably in a tightly-insulated, well designed building) then over the course of the tree lifespan, there's almost no net carbon dioxide emission (the carbon dioxide it absorbs during the growth period is almost equal to that released when it is burned). Fossil fuels are more of a problem because of the much longer time involved to produce them, at least at the simplest level. This is my understanding as it stands right now. If you have an argument against this, and I'm missing something, please share. I don’t agree with the statement that burning wood in a device such as the furnace you describe is the same as operating a vehicle such as a Prius using fossil fuels. If forests are managed and wood from such forests are used for heating (preferably in a tightly-insulated, well designed building) then over the course of the tree lifespan, there’s almost no net carbon dioxide emission (the carbon dioxide it absorbs during the growth period is almost equal to that released when it is burned). Fossil fuels are more of a problem because of the much longer time involved to produce them, at least at the simplest level. This is my understanding as it stands right now. If you have an argument against this, and I’m missing something, please share.

]]> http://greenbuildingelements.com/2008/06/27/the-unexpected-and-questionable-green-products-at-pcbc/comment-page-1/#comment-98138 tset Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:47:00 +0000 http://greenbuildingelements.com/?p=488#comment-98138 I don't agree with the statement that burning wood in a device such as the furnace you describe is the same as operating a vehicle such as a Prius using fossil fuels. If forests are managed and wood from such forests are used for heating (preferably in a tightly-insulated, well designed building) then over the course of the tree lifespan, there's almost no net carbon dioxide emission (the carbon dioxide it absorbs during the growth period is almost equal to that released when it is burned). Fossil fuels are more of a problem because of the much longer time involved to produce them, at least at the simplest level. This is my understanding as it stands right now. If you have an argument against this, and I'm missing something, please share. I don’t agree with the statement that burning wood in a device such as the furnace you describe is the same as operating a vehicle such as a Prius using fossil fuels. If forests are managed and wood from such forests are used for heating (preferably in a tightly-insulated, well designed building) then over the course of the tree lifespan, there’s almost no net carbon dioxide emission (the carbon dioxide it absorbs during the growth period is almost equal to that released when it is burned). Fossil fuels are more of a problem because of the much longer time involved to produce them, at least at the simplest level. This is my understanding as it stands right now. If you have an argument against this, and I’m missing something, please share.

]]>