Zero Waste

[Zero Waste]

Reducing waste, reusing where possible, and ultimately sending zero waste to landfill

[Mark Rylander]

It's great to work towards operations and supply chains that return materials to either 1) soil or 2) to what McDonough & Braungart call "technical nutrient cycles", where materials can be returned to a technical metabolism.   This is largely a manufacturing question that consumers and purchasers can affect by providing feedback to suppliers and voting with their wallets.

 

[Mark Rylander]

One more:   As I write, guests to the exhibition hall at Greenbuild are undoubtedly gathering brochures (in person or to their mailboxes) and souvenir marketing trinkets- even pens with flashing LEDs and camera batteries. They may find themselves drying their hands with "green" motorized LED-sensor hard-wired paper towel dispensers...  The wake of waste at the greenest events, offset or not, is still rather remarkable.  It's important to get together with our colleagues face-to-face though. And USGBC has been making strides since the early days to address these questions.  I look forward to hearing how this year was the best ever in terms of smart planning and operations. 

 

[Mark Rylander]

There's another kind of waste in the DESIGN of the built environment that can be more easily and quickly eliminated: stuff that should never have been made in the first place.  The early planning stages of buildings rarely provide time and fee to identify the original motives and program--to ask what is actually useful and valuable.  Do we need that extra room?  Can offices be 100sf instead of $140?  Should we renovate or build new?  Drop a new ceiling or paint the old one?  Wallcovering or painted plaster? The list is endless but the point is that every decision is an opportunity to either build a lot of value without waste, some value with some waste, or no value with a lot of waste. Every project is different, and yes, designing for growth and flexibility can also be smart.  If an idea for new stuff is mindful, it's less likely to be wasteful.

[Craig M Briscoe]

I couldn't agree more, and of particular interest are your points about the size of spaces and waste from renovation. The Oregon DEQ recently completed a study on construction and renovation waste generation in residential buildings with some really telling conclusions. First, that 50% of construction waste generation occurs during the assumed 70 years of occupancy of a house, just from renovations and material replacement (carpet etc). And second: "the environmental impact of the Extra-Small Home (1149 sq ft) are reduced between 20% and 40% that of the Medium Standard Home (2262 sq ft), suggesting that home size is among the most important determinants of environmental impact."

Mark Rylander said:

There's another kind of waste in the DESIGN of the built environment that can be more easily and quickly eliminated: stuff that should never have been made in the first place.  The early planning stages of buildings rarely provide time and fee to identify the original motives and program--to ask what is actually useful and valuable.  Do we need that extra room?  Can offices be 100sf instead of $140?  Should we renovate or build new?  Drop a new ceiling or paint the old one?  Wallcovering or painted plaster? The list is endless but the point is that every decision is an opportunity to either build a lot of value without waste, some value with some waste, or no value with a lot of waste. Every project is different, and yes, designing for growth and flexibility can also be smart.  If an idea for new stuff is mindful, it's less likely to be wasteful.