Posted by Harry Pasternak on August 14, 2003 at 11:59:18:
In Reply to: Re: "Green Building Materials" Versus "Embodied Energy+Health Risks" posted by Jim on August 14, 2003 at 06:11:31:
I had said the reverse of what you thought I was/am saying. I said that we should be paying for what an item actually costs - rather than what we are charged. The Jamaican taxpayer is paying through taxes - subsidizing you amd me - to the tune of $6 every time we buy a $1.49 bag of potato chips - because of the embodied energy used to make aluminum and the cost of shipping the aluminum around the world etc. - embodied energy. That bag of potato chips at the supermarket should be $7.49!
In a similar fashion the embodied energy that goes into steel, concrete etc. etc. is gigantic - and you and I never have to pay for it - if we did building materials would cost 30 to 100 times the price. The only question to answer is - which building products have the least embodied energy?
Types & Styles
Library Places Building Photos Free 3D Models Archiplanet