Our past discussion brought up some interesting points that I think we could address here in a way that I hope brings clarity to the situation.
I was asked in that discussion what green products I feel aren't sustainable and my answer to that would have to be all of them and none of them at the same time because there is no such thing as a product possessing the ability to be sustained. In order to say something like that I must define what I think it means to be sustainable. On the surface you would think the word would means having the ability to exist or be re-created in perpetuity. But I think that assumes a lot. Can a product posses this trait? No. So what we are dealing with is a cultural definition of what it means to be sustainable. The media would like you to believe that to be sustainable means to minimize energy input. They think it is that simple; if product A uses less energy than product B it is better. They think it is that simple but it is not.
Let's not isolate sustainability (or green-ness) to individual products, since they are nothing on their own but must be used in conjunction with other similar products and building techniques to amount to anything. If you have 'sustainably harvested' teak flooring but use lead based paint have you really done anything? I would say no. Automatically we starting dealing with the arrangement of products to complete the whole picture, but is it limited to that?
I think that there are three 'legs' to being sustainable: Environmental, Economic, and Social. Going green is limited to the environmental aspect and that is why I think it is an incomplete aspect to assign a value judgment. You can't focus on only one of these and be sustainable, you must address all of them.
HGTV's current dream home is billed as a Green Dream home, but is this better than my house when it comes to being green? They use all the fancy green whistles and bells but they built a new home and placed it in an environmentally fragile landscape (barrier Island off the Carolina's). This is the teak floor with lead paint approach. That geographic part of the world is battered by hurricane's on a frequent cycle and the life span of the home is limited from the start. I would imagine that there are other vacant lots or even homes further inland that would been a more reasonable site for building such a non-dynamic home. So while the guts of the home may meet some of the environmental aspects the placement makes those void. It makes little economic sense to build such and elaborate home (+$850,000) in such a temporal and shifting landscape. Socially this speaks little to community and speaks more to isolation so the social benefits are next to nothing.
Compare to my home that has little 'green' products in it (CFL's light bulbs in the kitchen and we recycle) but has been on it current location since 1936 and has served 3.5 generations of families so the 'cost' of the building materials has been amortized over that period. Environmentally I would say my home is more sound that the Green one from HGTV. Economically my home costs around $15,000 to build in 1936 which is $208 per year so far (the HGTV home would have to be around for 4,086 years to match that*). Socially my home promotes community and has value since it has been intact for 72 years with many more insight.
I think this idea is what Paul was saying in his comment about cars and their efficiency and use.
We can't look at the initial energy input or output to call something green but we must look at a much larger spectrum to finds it worth. This is what I hate about the 'Green' non-sense; it is too limited in consideration.
*this does not take into account inflation but the idea is the same.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Matt,
Are you usurping George as king of the Peg?
They are at least a more 'discussable' topic than some of George's though.
okay, so that is a point, matt. but what if you need new floors in your older, more environmentally friendly home? bamboo grows quickly and without much work, so it really does seem to me to be a sustainable resource. so wouldn't you think getting bamboo flooring would be a good idea? i mean, i've never looked into it, so i'm not being a wise acre (since you always assume that for some reason!), i just wondered.
also, today is 31 cent cone day at baskin robbins. just thought i'd share.
Good question Abby and I will say that is a tricky question and can only answer with other questions.
First, how do you know bamboo is more 'sustainbly grown' than oak or even teak? Because it grows fast means it is sustainable? Or does it mean it is more disposable?
Where is the bamboo grown? Is it more environmentally friendly to transport bamboo great distances than to cut down an Oak tree?
What manner is it grown in? Bamboo is a monocot, like grasses, requires larger amounts of nitrogen than dicots (oaks and such). How is this nitrogen produced?
So you see that it is not easy to declare something environmentally friendly and just because a product is being pushed by GE, NBC, or has a little sticker on it does not make it good.
I would say the most sustainable flooring is the one that will last the longest which was made and transported with the least amount of energy. Could be bamboo, but it could also be gold. I don't know.
are the cones wrapped in environmentally friendly hemp?
And, yes Jed, I am king of the blog. I always have been. George never had that title.
okay, matt. i see what you mean. but can't bamboo be grown anywhere and really quickly? it still seems like it is probably better than cutting down an oak tree that will take forever to grow. but, i do see what you mean, especially in regard to most other things. i am really starting to think more about the distances things are transported even at the grocery store (partly because i am sick of the distance i have to transport myself to get there!) when we move, what i really want to do is a farmer's co-op type thing, because we just take for granted that all our fruit is from Chile, and that is a mighty big distance (and who knows what their standards are?). my sister says people in France are super snobby about where their fruits and veggies were grown. they are pretty skeptical of anything imported. i wonder if this is for good reason. it seems like buying local eggs, milk, cheese, and vegetables is good for the local economy as well as the environment. plus, who wants to eat a mealy apple in February or sour strawberries in October anyway? so what do you say to that? that is a pretty commonly promoted "green" idea. and it sounds like something you would do too. aren't you a big Pepper Place shopper?
Abby,
If buying bamboo flooring helps you sleep at night, knock yourself out. But we won't save the world with our flooring choices.
I hear what you are saying about agriculture and I would say that the idea of buying local speaks more to 'place-based living' than green (but they are not necessarily exclusive). Yeah, the idea that we inhabit the areas around us promote local economies and is a more 'sustainable' approach.
And, yes I am a Pepper Place shopper. It opens for the season tomorrow (if we don't get carried away by tornados tonight).
And the French are A-holes.
Post a Comment