Your point about values and LCA is very well taken--but I am skeptical that
environmental impacts can be fairly valued. In fact, I believe companies
are excluding environmental costs that they classify as "externalities".
For example, I'm looking at a brochure from Western Wood Products that says
"What's the most environmentally compatible building product in the world?"
on the cover, and inside contains a simplified LCA. What is the key
assumption about wood products? Quote, "...only wood products come from a
renewable resource--America's Forests. Annual growth in these forests
safely exceeds removal volumes by 30% or more."
That claim is an assertion, not a fact: no one knows if forests are renewable.
But also, wood products companies have not yet started to pay the costs of
sustainable forest management and harvesting--they're still cutting the
national forests and leaving the "external" costs of environmental damage
for the public to pay. Today, the Forest Service goes along with the
charade--for example, the costs to taxpayers of building roads for loggers
to access the forests is excluded from the calculated cost of a sale. When
wood products companies have to build access roads that don't cause
landslides, or buffer streams against erosion, wood products are going to
become much more expensive. Until then an LCA could rate wood favorably
because real costs are excluded.
Mining companies are similarly disinclined to accept the costs of cleanup
for past environmental damage.For example, no mining company accepts any
responsibility for the billions of dollars it will cost to clean up the
Berkeley pit in Butte. When they prepare the LCA for a product, they will
exclude that cost. Yet, someone's going to pay it!
How can LCAs ever become objective when companies have so much at stake--to
skew the results to make their products look good?
Mike
(snip)
>
>It is the WEIGHTING of different environmental effects or impacts that
>requires subjective judgment. But, even that can be made systematic (not
>objective, but potentially consistent) by using consistent criteria and
>applying them consistently. Values will still enter in. That is unavoidable.
>That is exactly why I insist that we talk about them - if we don't, then we
>are likely just using those of the people who are currently empowered by
>default. We should not refuse to talk about values that we don't share,
>whether we think we can change them or not. We cannot change them if we do
>not talk about them.
>
>The value choices are always present. They cannot be avoided. Not discussing
>them or pretending they are not there, or not making them explicit does not
>make them go away. It simply hides them from view and precludes discussion.
>Why are we so afraid to discuss values? Just because we may disagree? All
>the important decisions are made with tremendous dependence on embedded
>values. Sustainability is about values - valuing other species, and valuing
>other humans, living now and in the future.
>
O'Brien & Associates
Environmental Building Consultants
Portland General Electric Earth Smart program
Earth-Wise Builders
obrien@hevanet.com
__________________________________________________________________
This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by Oikos (www.oikos.com)
and Environmental Building News (www.ebuild.com). For instructions
send e-mail to greenbuilding-request@crest.org.
__________________________________________________________________