Partners
HOME    BLOGS    BLOGGERS    MESSAGES    VIDEO    AUDIO    REPORTS    RESEARCH    WEBINARS
Newest First    Oldest First    Threaded View
Christoper To
Christoper To  
11/12/2013 8:21:41 AM
User Rank Blogger
Re: Low-Carbon Constructing
Davedgreat and Nicole: you've touched on an interesting point here. While it may be costly for upgrading plant and training, we do believe that low carbon products do not necessarily cost more. Alternative raw materials (e.g. clinker substitution by fly ash) and adopting energy-saving measures through lifecycle carbon auditing may far outweigh the cost in the long run. Similar to the case of LED, having a higher initial cost but will be recouped over time in energy savings and re-lamping expenses i.e. "a low-cost low-carbon solution".

Through the labelling scheme, we wish to create opportunities for business and induce innovation in the low carbon market. More importantly, we shouldn't overlook the "cost" to future generations due to climate change if no prompt action is taken. Because there is also a cost that isn't expressed in the markets. Using materials with high carbon content is certainly the process of putting a price on the ecosystem. The question is: are we willing to incur the increased direct costs for low carbon products (if this turn outs to be the case) in order to avoid the indirect costs that will be borne by our future generations?

Nicole Ferraro
Nicole Ferraro  
10/31/2013 9:18:41 AM
User Rank Staff
Re: Low-Carbon Constructing
Hey PeterJ: Your wish is my command!



PeterJ
PeterJ  
10/30/2013 10:13:23 PM
User Rank Urban Legend
Re: Low-Carbon Constructing
Yes, Nicole, I recall in previous threads how "Green" efforts can transform into something other than Green. I do see this certification as a process that might bring uniformity/consistency to the effort. It would be great to see the inside architecture of the building pictured here, too.

Nicole Ferraro
Nicole Ferraro  
10/30/2013 9:17:33 PM
User Rank Staff
Re: Low-Carbon Constructing
Davedgreat: Interesting comment. I wonder, though, if carbon labelling makes the consumer cost any more expensive than the cost is for a standard "green" or carbon-neutral building? It's gotta be more expensive either way, but at least in this case developers can choose to work with the most eco-friendly materials, right?

If I have a concern it's that, oftentimes "green" buildings are constructed, and then once they are actually used by humans, they're not so green anymore. I'm curious to know whether carbon labeling makes that at all less likely to be the case?

Davedgreat2000
Davedgreat2000  
10/30/2013 12:52:27 PM
User Rank Urban Legend
Low-Carbon Constructing
Having been to Hong Kong over a decade ago and seeing first hand the building boom that has taken place and is currently taking place and all the pollution that is created, this seems like a good idea. However, what is the cost to the consumer? With all the labeling to take place it will increase the cost of building materials to the point where they dont want to use green materials. New Manufacturing techniques will have to be created as well as training of the work force.  

research
Smart City Money Makers
companies and solutions that are most prominent, and destined to be most profitable, in the smart city revolution.
How to Make Your City Smarter
Cities all over the world need to become smarter and more sustainable. But where to start? Download this guide to learn the first, proven steps toward making your city smarter.
all research
quick poll
Join the discussion
All polls
twitter feed
Future Cities Twitter Feed
follow us on facebook
Site Moderators
Future Cities is looking for engaged readers to moderate the message boards on this site. Engage in high-IQ conversations; earn kudos and perks. Interested? E-mail:
moderators@ubmfuturecities.com
directory
Designed to provide the people with access to green building products all year round
connect to us
Terms of Service
Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2014 UBM,
All rights reserved.