Posted November 9, 2007 1:25 PM by Tristan Roberts
Related Categories: The Industry, Science & Tech, LEED, Events, Greenbuild '07

Based on some of the audience Q&A I think that much of the audience left grumbling after Thursday's session, "Demystifying Sustainability: A Life-Cycle Perspective," convened by the energetic Meredith Elbaum of Sasaki, with Stanley Rhodes of Scientific Certification Systems speaking along with Nancy Harrod of Sasaki and Melissa Vernon of InterfaceFlor.

I put Stanley's name first because I think he was the source of the grumbling. At a conference where "Was the session inspiring?" is one of the questions asked by the educational session evaluation form, Stanley made pointed criticisms of LEED and registered alarm about consequences of carbon emissions, like oceanic acidification (he polled the audience on its awareness of this issue—which was lacking, so here's a great LA Times article on the issue).

But I found Stanley's presentation exciting.

He recommended the use of Environmental Performance Declarations, which have been compared to a "nutrition facts" label for building materials, buildings, electricity, or any other product with an environmental impact. Just as the nutrition facts label analyzes the nutrition of a food item, so could similar labels list impacts in numerous categories in a product's life cycle, such as greenhouse gas emissions, human health impacts, cost, durability, disposal issues, etc. Here's an example of an actual carpet sample.

Stanley argued that life-cycle assessment is the best way to comprehensively understand a product's environmental performance. (For more on this topic check out the EBN feature Life-Cycle Assessment for Buildings: Seeking the Holy Grail.) I've been skeptical of this approach because it takes considerable time and expertise to understand the results of such an analysis. But Stanley introduced a variation on the nutrition facts label that shows at a glance, with a color coded bar chart, how a product stacks up against others in the same category. In this way the comparison to the nutrition label is not a good one, because that label does not offer an instant comparison (and the nutritional data isn't suited to it).

Life-cycle assessment can reveal bad news (leaving people grumbling) but we need to know the true impacts of products in order to reduce them. Look for more on understanding green product certifications and the role of life-cycle assessment in the next EBN.

Comments (0) | Send | | 3163 Views

Related Blog Entries

Comments

Get new posts via e-mail:


Recent Comments

Green Building Myth #3: Green Products Don’t Work as Well as Standard Products

Tony Marshallsay says, “Bill: I enjoyed reading the article - particularly the vast amount of text concerning what to do if...” More...


People Like Urine-Separating Toilets

ted hettick says, “I like the illustration, too!” More...


Alex's Cool Product of the Week: Zehnder’s High-Efficiency HRV Systems

Buzz says, “Every aspect of this system is long overdue and sounds terrific. Except of course, for the price. ...” More...


LEED AP Credential Maintenance: Cracking the Code

Mara Baum says, “I suspect that many people will need to weigh the pros and cons of "opting in" in terms of...” More...


Green Building Myth #3: Green Products Don’t Work as Well as Standard Products

Bill Swanson says, “CFL's put LESS mercury into the environment then typical incandescent lamps. By a 1:2 ratio per the...” More...



Follow BuildingGreen
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Linkedin