[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GBlist: <<Update>> ASTM Residential Green Building Task Group
In a message dated 97-04-18 16:23:25 EDT, you write:
<< The guide as drafted in 2nd ballot review was termed "flawed,
excessively regulatory in scope, and contains references
to approaches such as life-cycle-assessment (LCA) on building
materials that are error-prone and expensive to apply," and is
thought "inappropriate" by various building materials industry
groups and trade organizations involved in ASTM. >>
I am saddened by the FEAR OF TRUTH that permiates the discussions about what
is THE RIGHT THING TO DO.... that is, consider today's actions in the greater
context of the future. I wonder, do those that fear life-cycle cost analyses
also hate children? Caution: YES, we have to make sure that the science is
the best available --- that is why we have peer-reviewed technical
conferences and scientific discourse. (Contrary to popular opinion, not ALL
scientists agree all the time.)
Sidebar: While I usually trust and am strongly in favor of free-market
forces, sometimes regulation IS necessary to "lead man to his own best
interests" as Mr. Lincoln said in 1842.
The green building community has another "responsibility" (besides leading by
example).... we must bring those LEADER companies and industry
respresentatives to the standards and regulatory arena to show their peers
that the building industry CAN survive in the face of life-cycle costing.
The building industry can THRIVE with a better understanding of embodied
energy. And the public MUST become BETTER INFORMED as to the TRUE COSTS (for
us AND our children) of our decisions.
OK. I'm off my recycled soapbox now. How do we best recharge the process?
R. Christopher Mathis
5253 Columbia Road
Columbia, MD 21044
This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by Oikos (www.oikos.com)
and Environmental Building News (www.ebuild.com). For instructions
send e-mail to email@example.com.