Distance in US vs Europe
If a product meets the requirements for a responsible extracted raw material it will be weighted also by distance to the location in the way of being extracted within the country equals 150%, within the state equals 200% and within 50 miles equals 300%. Well America is one of the largest countries in the world. Germany for instance is about the size of Texas and Netherland are as big as one of Germany's states. The point I'm trying to make is that there needs to be another option of small countries. I very much agree with adopting a radius based on people density but it can't go so far as to compare the US with Belgien or Thailand. If a project in France buys stones from Italy, it should be treated the same as a project in Philly buying stones from Sedona, AZ.
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Jason Grant
PrincipalJason Grant Consulting
LEEDuser Expert
164 thumbs up
March 20, 2012 - 6:11 pm
I agree with you, Susann, that there should be a fixed distance for any additional weighting for the location of harvesting/extraction of raw materials. Your point regarding European countries and the U.S. also applies to large and small states in the U.S. - in California under the current credit language, you could get 200% weighting for, say, wood harvested in the northern part of the state and used in a project in San Diego, 600 or 700 miles away - but in a small state like Connecticutt, you could source wood from 100 miles away in Massachussetts and only receive 150% weighting. This is arbitrary.
Also, awarding 300% weighting for "local" materials that are harvested/extracted/manufactured within 50 miles of the project is well-intended but largely meaningless since VERY few materials will qualify.
Susann Geithner
PrincipalEmerald Built Environments
1297 thumbs up
March 20, 2012 - 6:21 pm
Actually the 50 miles will really be unachievable for any downtown project. 50 miles out of Chicago and you start digging in the suburbs.
As much as I want to encourage local materials, maybe the USGBC should check their current projects so far and see how much could actually make that happen so far just for regional materials under the current rating system than add responsible sourcing and sources of materials down the chain.
Rob Watson
CEOECON Group
170 thumbs up
March 25, 2012 - 7:17 pm
There is no doubt that the updated goals of this credit are in conflict with the general push for location-efficient development in existing urban cores. Clearly the dissuasive nature of these requirements in terms of overall LEED market acceptance should allow a greater threshold for projects located in large urban areas--say 250 miles. Generally, the transportation portion of the overall LCA is quite small compared to the manufacturing and use phase footprint.
This seems like a misapplication of a principle to me.
Susann Geithner
PrincipalEmerald Built Environments
1297 thumbs up
March 26, 2012 - 9:15 am
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for supporting the use of local products. Not so much because of life cycle costs, much more because it supports local economies, recycling and reuse. It might also make Architects like me think twice about using those fancy tiles from Italy or the stone imported from China.
However I think the way this is written will impose an unfair disadvantage on a lot of projects particularly international once and projects in large urban areas.