Reuse: The True Sustainability

In a lot of places we are seeing new recycling endeavors. Whether it’s recycle bins or recycled materials we used, we are taught to recycle in order to be sustainable. No doubt recycling has its benefits and is always better than making completely new goods but the truth is that there is nothing more sustainable that reusing something as is. 

Deconstruction is the process of carefully dismantling a building in order to salvage components for reuse and/or recycling. Results in products for sale, trained labor force, improved environmental quality. This is never to be confused with demolition which is the act of destroying a building (or portion), often with heavy machinery, employing very few and resulting in only garbage for the landfill.

When people spend their money they expect the best value. Sometimes people mistake the “best value” for “new.” There is a stigma for reused things. We would all rather what we know is brand new but we must be considerate of environment. Reuse in construction, does not at all imply that we should construct with inferior and run-down material from elsewhere, but instead that we reclaim those parts that are quality. Recycling is actually a way we know that the quality is something inferior to what was before. It actually takes energy to get something inferior instead of using something that takes no additional energy at all.

So are there other benefits to reuse? Sure there are!  There are cost offsets in the form of tax donations for materials. These are geared toward homeowners in moderate tax brackets.

Deconstruction is quieter, cleaner, and much safer than demolition. Sometimes the materials are even valuable for resale.

I know how alluring complete destruction can be to some contractors. I don’t know on how many remodeling shows I’ve seen the workers go crazy with a sledge hammer to take down interior walls and create new inviting spaces. Sure, demolition is faster but if we do what is expedient or convenient all the time we will never get the chance to turn our environmental situation around. Landfill space is becoming more and more unavailable and the fees are quite costly to haul useable material there. Save money and materials, it just makes sense.
 
                       

As with anything it’s difficult to get anything going without some strong backing from our public policy. Until the government finds the need to enforce true sustainable practices, the reuse movement will be on the shoulders of the minority who believe in stewardship and environmental health. As we speak there are places that dictate the only 50% of waste can go to the landfill or there are penalties. Unfortunately demolition does not have such stipulations. What we must do now is “think befor we throw away.”

                                          

Construction Waste Management Part 2

Construction waste management is as complex a topic as the structure themselves having many variations and nuisances that have held construction as one of the most wasteful industries. Researchers have well documented a number of inherent causes for construction site waste and associated the reluctance to modify these wasteful behaviors. General concern for the environment and sustainability seems to be at an upward but glacial pace as the need to minimize waste continues to be a goal the has not been met. 

                                          

It is incumbent upon any researcher seeking to find solutions to a dilemma to have a special grasp as to the essence of the issue. Understanding this it is important to come to a consensus on what waste is. In the general sense, “waste is the opposite of sustainability (Ma 2011).” In the book No Waste Uly Ma offers up several applicable and time definitions as waste relates to construction. The first is “waste is at that is discarded but can still be used to deliver value.” The second is “waste is any activity that does not add value (Ma 2011). ” Both of these aspects are crucial according to Ma when attempting to mitigate the unsavory amount of waste production in the construction industry.  These two definitions work together because they cover the whole spectrum of a construction project. Value is related to the aspects of talent, ideas, efforts, time, morale, and productivity. These are intangibles that contribute to waste in a very tangible way in the end. The first definition deals more with the generally accepted definition for construction waste. Based on these definitions Ma concluded that “reducing waste is probably one of the most direct way[s] of doing sustainability. He catalogued “Eight wastes”  the account for both of his definitions of waste: waiting, over-complex procedures, not working to plan, overdoing or redoing, excessive transport, over stocking defects/mistakes/errors, and lost ideas and innovations (Ma 2011). With construction waste management, it is crucial that all these aspects be taken into consideration.
                      

       In many cases it is understood that “the most successful way of dealing with waste is not to produce it (Addis 2006).” Bill Addis, author of Building with Reclaimed Components and Materials wrote about waste in the context of the life cycle of materials. He stated that there were two types of cycles: the linear life cycle of materials and goods and the closed-loop cycle of materials. The linear cycle is the cycle that has caused the current landfill space issues due to the “cradle to grave” characteristic of the throwaway society.”  The process begins with extraction, to manufacture, to product, to use, to demolition, to waste (Addis 2006). In order to minimize the waste disposed of at the landfill Addis proposed that once material gets to the use phase after that it is either dismantled for reclamation refurbishment, remanufacture and reuse or it can be demolished and recycled after its use starting the cycle again. Instead of just focusing on the amount of material wasted Addis suggests a method for assessing materials and manufacturing processes’ impacts on the environment by using life cycle analysis (LCA) “which evaluates all the environmental burdens associated with a product, process or activity(Addis 2006).”

         Analyses like LCA illuminate how much one actually saves when ensuring that materials are not being wasted and therefore “reduce or eliminate the need to mine, harvest, or synthesize new materials (Geiser 2001).” In the book, Materials Matter, Kenneth Geiser notes the major resource savings that recycling instead of disposal can have. “It is estimated that the recovery of 1 ton of steel from scrap conserves nearly 1.5 tons of iron ore, 0.6 tons of coal, and 120 pounds of limestone(Geiser 2001).”

              

References

Addis, Bill (2006). “The World of Reclamation, Reuse, and Recycling.” Building with Reclaimed Components and Materials, Eathscan, London, England, 12,59

Geiser, Kenneth (2001). “Recycling and Reuse of Materials.” Materials Matter, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 215-233

Ma, Uly (2011). “Introducing Waste: Anti-sustainability.” No Waste, MPG Books Group, Burlington,VT, 117-138