10 ms·

Using wood for building is a carbon sequestering process. Compare it to using cement, a process that massively releases carbon.

jessaustin 8y ago
This is great; another way for warming enthusiasts to put their money where their mouths are. We should see new wooden cities just as soon as they sell their properties in Manhattan and Miami...
- aaaaaaaaaab 8y ago
  Hehe, don’t hold your breath!
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    Declarations of "whataboutism" incoming, I'm sure. "You can't use my investment decisions to impeach my religious beliefs!"
- nerdponx 8y ago
  Most people who have the opportunity to build their own homes build them out of wood. It's not like I as a "warming enthusiast" can start rebuilding parts of Manhattan. Even if you are a property owner in New York City, it's unlikely that you will actually rebuild the buildings on your property.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    Anyone who believes the predictions has already sold her property in NYC. Perhaps now she is buying up soon-to-be-farmed tundra? In any case we wouldn't expect much new development to occur at elevations near sea level. I'm not sure why people are unhappy to hear about this new opportunity to simultaneously profit from their knowledge and improve society's organization through their investment signals.
    - awkward 8y ago
      So if people REALLY believed in global warming they would give up their relatively low impact apartments to take up industrial farming?
      - frockington 8y ago
        I think the main point is that there wouldn't be any new development in ocean-side cities if people believed the sensationalism, not that everyone would take up farming.
        awkward 8y ago
        Good thing he has you to shrink a bad faith argument to a radically smaller set of claims!
        jessaustin 8y ago
        'frockington actually read what I wrote. You imagined something silly like "the world is not warming", which I didn't write. I'm pointing out a real issue here. I'm sure you believe that actions taken by humans will cause earth to warm in disastrous ways. Lots of other people claim to believe that, but as long as their investments say otherwise, we won't really be getting ready for the calamity. Then there are those who want the government to bail out all the flooded condos in Miami, as if that would reduce this problem...
    - AnarchoYeasty 8y ago
      Are you seriously denying the reality of global climate change? Believe the predictions? You don't need predictions you can just look at our world today. It's already happening and is only getting worse.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
user3359 8y ago
This is more of a problem with time frames. Wooden houses last 100-200 years if very well built. I've seen teardowns after 50, sometimes less. What's the environmental cost of building 4 wood buildings to last as long as 1 concrete building? Concrete construction lasts centuries. And if torn down, can be crushed and after separated from rebar, re-used as aggregate in another project.
- awkward 8y ago
  Directly trapping carbon for over 50 years is pretty good, and the main CO2 release in concrete is the cement - both in heating it and the actual reaction necessary to create it. Aggregate availability isn't the issue there. On top of that, large scale structural concrete is a fairly new technology, and while improvements to longevity have been made, many buildings will be lucky to make it to 100 years.
- EADGBE 8y ago
  50 year homes being torn down? Whoa. I haven't seen anything like that in my experience at all. House I grew up in is still going strong at 65, really quite a baby compared to most around me in my suburb. Only know of one house which burned down completely, was torn down and rebuilt in the heart of the city. Most significant damage caused to wood-frame homes tends to allow partial rebuilding and renovation without the need for tearing it all down completely.
  - nsxwolf 8y ago
    There's a lot of ~50 year teardowns where I live, but it's people that want to build something big and ostentatious on the lot in desirable neighborhoods. The homes they are destroying are often all brick construction.
  - SystemOut 8y ago
    You see it mostly with smaller homes in areas that are desirable. The smaller homes, usually built 50-60 years, tend to have low ceilings, small kitchens, no master bedroom, etc. Some have structural issues due to neglect but most are fine structurally just not desired by buyers. When the owners decide to sell they usually get snapped up basically for the land cost - demolition cost and are torn down for "teardown" houses. In Chicago it's pretty common. Our street is about a 50% mix of 50s homes and < 10 year old teardown homes.

jessaustin 8y ago

This is great; another way for warming enthusiasts to put their money where their mouths are. We should see new wooden cities just as soon as they sell their properties in Manhattan and Miami...

aaaaaaaaaab 8y ago
Hehe, don’t hold your breath!
- jessaustin 8y ago
  Declarations of "whataboutism" incoming, I'm sure. "You can't use my investment decisions to impeach my religious beliefs!"
nerdponx 8y ago
Most people who have the opportunity to build their own homes build them out of wood. It's not like I as a "warming enthusiast" can start rebuilding parts of Manhattan. Even if you are a property owner in New York City, it's unlikely that you will actually rebuild the buildings on your property.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  Anyone who believes the predictions has already sold her property in NYC. Perhaps now she is buying up soon-to-be-farmed tundra? In any case we wouldn't expect much new development to occur at elevations near sea level. I'm not sure why people are unhappy to hear about this new opportunity to simultaneously profit from their knowledge and improve society's organization through their investment signals.
  - awkward 8y ago
    So if people REALLY believed in global warming they would give up their relatively low impact apartments to take up industrial farming?
    - frockington 8y ago
      I think the main point is that there wouldn't be any new development in ocean-side cities if people believed the sensationalism, not that everyone would take up farming.
      - awkward 8y ago
        Good thing he has you to shrink a bad faith argument to a radically smaller set of claims!
        jessaustin 8y ago
        'frockington actually read what I wrote. You imagined something silly like "the world is not warming", which I didn't write. I'm pointing out a real issue here. I'm sure you believe that actions taken by humans will cause earth to warm in disastrous ways. Lots of other people claim to believe that, but as long as their investments say otherwise, we won't really be getting ready for the calamity. Then there are those who want the government to bail out all the flooded condos in Miami, as if that would reduce this problem...
  - AnarchoYeasty 8y ago
    Are you seriously denying the reality of global climate change? Believe the predictions? You don't need predictions you can just look at our world today. It's already happening and is only getting worse.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

user3359 8y ago

This is more of a problem with time frames. Wooden houses last 100-200 years if very well built. I've seen teardowns after 50, sometimes less. What's the environmental cost of building 4 wood buildings to last as long as 1 concrete building? Concrete construction lasts centuries. And if torn down, can be crushed and after separated from rebar, re-used as aggregate in another project.

awkward 8y ago
Directly trapping carbon for over 50 years is pretty good, and the main CO2 release in concrete is the cement - both in heating it and the actual reaction necessary to create it. Aggregate availability isn't the issue there. On top of that, large scale structural concrete is a fairly new technology, and while improvements to longevity have been made, many buildings will be lucky to make it to 100 years.
EADGBE 8y ago
50 year homes being torn down? Whoa. I haven't seen anything like that in my experience at all. House I grew up in is still going strong at 65, really quite a baby compared to most around me in my suburb. Only know of one house which burned down completely, was torn down and rebuilt in the heart of the city. Most significant damage caused to wood-frame homes tends to allow partial rebuilding and renovation without the need for tearing it all down completely.
- nsxwolf 8y ago
  There's a lot of ~50 year teardowns where I live, but it's people that want to build something big and ostentatious on the lot in desirable neighborhoods. The homes they are destroying are often all brick construction.
- SystemOut 8y ago
  You see it mostly with smaller homes in areas that are desirable. The smaller homes, usually built 50-60 years, tend to have low ceilings, small kitchens, no master bedroom, etc. Some have structural issues due to neglect but most are fine structurally just not desired by buyers. When the owners decide to sell they usually get snapped up basically for the land cost - demolition cost and are torn down for "teardown" houses. In Chicago it's pretty common. Our street is about a 50% mix of 50s homes and < 10 year old teardown homes.