[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
GBlist: life cycle cost analysis
Christopher: Your short note of below on:Re: GBlist: <<Update>> ASTM
Residential Green Building Task Group, were well articulated. What is the
best model of the above?
Jorg Ostrowski, M. Arch. A.S. (MIT), B. Arch. (Toronto), Ecotect
in full-time professional practice since 1976 (Straw Bale since 1978),
3 demonstration projects in Canada built 1979, 1981, 1994, +80,000 visitors
- living a conserver lifestyle & working in a sustainable home and office
Web Site [under construction]: http://www.ucalgary.ca/~jdo/ecotecture.htm
On Sat, 19 Apr 1997 RCMathis1@aol.com wrote:
> 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.
This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by Oikos (www.oikos.com)
and Environmental Building News (www.ebuild.com). For instructions
send e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org.