3 ms·
Ok so below were some comments. TL;DR: carbon sink, pulp wood rather than old growth, trees get replanted. I think that is all fine and dandy, but I personall
by mikorym 8y ago
Ok so below were some comments.
TL;DR: carbon sink, pulp wood rather than old growth, trees get replanted.
I think that is all fine and dandy, but I personally would prefer an article simply describing the building. I don't think it's necessary to go the "this is green" or "better than concrete" route. For me good is good, that's it. Don't need to play towards a debate.
- erk__ 8y agoConcrete production actually produces a surprising amount of co2 globally it is the source of 5% of all co2.
- iceninenines 8y agoThere's work underway to make concrete carbon negative "greener" by mixing it in a sealed container and adding other chemicals to it to bind the CO2 and added carbon as a solid component of the finished concrete. I can't recall if it's the lime or Portland cement step of the process.
- Arn_Thor 8y agoIn most of the world, people consider climate change scientifically proven. There isn't a debate. In Norway, the building is featured as "green" because that is desirable in a world where we want to limit CO2 emissions and other environmental harm
- mikorym 8y agoYou missed what I was saying. Using wood is highly dependent on region. In other places, the greenest building is the one that is already standing. Even if it may be made from concrete.
- aoeusnth1 8y agoWhat debate?
- mikorym 8y agoA generalising debate about which construction techniques are "better". Every place has it's own most adequate materials. In Norway it may be wood, in Japan it may be bamboo, but in many places it is concrete or some upgrade thereof. I didn't like that the article is basically an advert.