*
What does the word mean to you, in practice, in theory?
Discussion Forum
Discussion Forum
Up Next
Video Shorts
Featured Story
In older homes like these, the main remodeling goal is often a more welcoming, more social, and more functional kitchen.
Featured Video
Highlights
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Fine Homebuilding Magazine
Fine Home Building
Follow
-
Fine Homebuilding
Dig into cutting-edge approaches and decades of proven solutions with total access to our experts and tradespeople.
Start Free Trial Now -
GBA Prime
Get instant access to the latest developments in green building, research, and reports from the field.
Start Free Trial Now
Replies
*
For me, I find it applies in two areas.
First, is the material I am using coming from a renewable source?
Second, Is the method and material I'm using going to last the test of time.
I'm a master carpenter. Wood and lumber from a virgin forest is a joy to use, but the question I have is, can I acheive the same outcome using material from 2nd and 3rd generation managed timber?
The fact is, as humans, we will never see trees planted now, grow to 600 years and beyond. Trees of that age will never happen again as long as humans utilize timber for structures, finishes and furniture. Bye-bye, ain't never gonna happen again.
So, I have to answer that question now before I order a huge douglas fir beam or millwork from virgin redwood.
What are the alternatives?
And by using the alternative, will it last? Or will an other carpenter, in a mere 50 years, be tearing it out, thus using more resources to do the job over again?
It is a question worth asking..........
*Mark was looking over my shoulder...so ... there yaa go...Two of the same voice.near the stream,aj
*I can't help but think of a story I read regarding a university in England (think it was Oxford) which had a building from the 17th century with a rotting oak beam in it. They puzzled over where they would possibly find a replacement that size in this day and age, and as a last resort, went to the Grounds office, where one fellow led them to a grove of oaks that had been planted at the same time the building had been done.Until we begin thinking like that, there will be no such thing as sustainability.
*It was back in an old issue of COEVOLUTION QUARTERLY, I think at Oxford University in England. The roof beams in one of the old halls needed to be replaced. They were old and showing signs of decay after some 300 years of providing shelter. The question was asked, where do we get new beams to replace these? The answer was in the oak grove that was planted at the time the beams were replaced before, some three hundred years before. Suistainability and forthought carried on through the ages.walk gooddavid
*So what do we build with? Adobe brick? And what happens when we run out of water and straw?Arn't all natural resources depletable?I think managed forrestry is the answer. No, you won't find any 16qtr white oak, but do we really need 16qtr white oak for shelter?100 years from now things will be as different then as they are now looking back 100 years. People will adapt just as we have. The new technology today will be the antiquity of the future.I'm more concerned with air and water quality. Without those things, the future will build nothing with whatever medium is left to build with.Ed.
*Adobe brick is one viable option. Around here adobe buildings often outlast framed buildings. There are many viable options if we can let ourselves think outside the box. Especially if that box is made of virgin heart redwood.Lisa "hoping the 100 year old cypress trees in my yard don't fall on my house" Long
*Use less, deliver more.blue
*I live in Michigan's Upper Peninsula,one of the prime hardwood producing regions of the country. Sustainability is a politically correct term for managed woodlands when in reality it means nothing. Shoddy hack and slash logging continues full bore the only difference is now there are signs along the road everywhere stating that your forest is in good hands. In addition to being a stairbuilder I derive a good portion of my income selling birdseye and curly maple mailorder. Ten years ago I sold 40,000 ft/ yr. Today I'm lucky to find 6000 ft. Maple has been so over cut it's enough to make a woodworker weep. It burns me to no end when I hear these companies toot the horn that they use only certified lumber. Certified by whom? The people who certify the forest never get to see the places that are hacked. Personally I would like to see the sustained forest idea take root however from what I see the system is propelled by the usual greed and coruption.
*Armin, if you were selling 40,000 ft ten years ago, you were part of the problem...Shoulda raised your prices then.blue
*Blue eyed devil, I don't consider myself part of the problem since the lumber I purshased was destined to be sold as low grade lumber or worse yet as pulp logs. It may come as a surprise to you but as far as manufactures are concerned figured wood is a pain in the arse to work with and should be burned for fuel. A mill that saws 20,000 ft of maple a week may only find 200 ft of good birdseye, hardly worth the effort to sort and handle it umpteen times. I managed to convince them otherwise, it takes alot of time and effort on my part to find this material, I consider it a lumber rescue program. Unfortunatly you can't rescue something that doesn't exist.
*I definitely agree with Mark. I would add, however, that sustainability also applies to the land we build on. If we continue to sprawl all over our farmland, we will have little to eat in the near future. Just as we plan what materials to use and the craftsmanship we use, we should also plan where we build and how efficient the building is. What is sustainable about homeowners driving unnecessary miles to their homes on prime farmland?Oh, and one more scary thing. In these parts it is common practice for struggling farmers to sell of their topsoil to developers and nurseries. While the topsoil might not need 600 years to develop, it doesn't come about overnight. We sure don't need pretty lawns so bad that we have to strip our food sources for soil, do we?
*Quarter-sawn and rift cuts are all the rage in Dallas right now. It's more expensive because, like Armin says, it's a pain in the neck for the lumber mills to cut it that way and because the yeild from the tree is less than plain sawn. Seems wasteful to me for a client that wouldn't know plain sawn oak from rift if you hit them over the head with it.You can still get some beautiful veneers, but I hear that they too are now getting hard to find.
*Good point from Rein on land use and sprawl.Rather than wood and building material, the loss is time and transportation expences.Until urban redevelopment becomes profitable on a large scale again, (pre Reagan) it's a moot point to argue. Developers go were the money is and buyers go where they feel safe. I still think it's bizarre to drive up on a cornfield and see them growing houses. No trees, yuck, always looks so damn hot!
*If you really want to address the root of most sustain ability issues you have to eventually face the fact that you have to make fewer people.The more there are, the less there is to go around. Period.We can keep improving our efficiency and reducing our waste, but somewhere along the line we go beyond what can be compensated for (pick the commodity) and then we'll really be in a fix.
*I think that in the construction industry, the ultimate in sustainability is simple remodeling. Rather than trash the old house (as is often done around here), why not remodel it? Add on, add up, re-do....sometimes it costs more, but not always.
*Has anybody read "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn?
*i "If you really want to address the root of most sustainability issues you have to eventually face the fact that you have to make fewer people. i The more there are, the less there is to go around."Norm, no one honestly can argue with that, but if you really want to address the question of sustainability now you got to face the fact that first world countries, the U.S. in particular, hell, myself as a good example, use a disproportionately huge share of our land's resources with respect to the global population, and our federal and corporate bureaucrats are more interested in fattening the man than husbanding our land. It's not just inefficiency, it's mind boggling, stupid inefficiency. What are we gonna do when everyone in China and India wants a 4000 sq ft. house?rgrds, George
*Lance.........yes, I've read it..........Whoa guys.....the question was "does it enter your work"Not that the comments are true, it a question of "what can little old me do?"
*Mark-The fatal flaw in the current "Weltanschaung," within which we all labor, is the idea that: The Self Is Flawed. Everything in our lives coming downstream of this precursor dictates that Nothing Should Be Expected To Go Right. This, in spite of the fact that to do anything at all requires hope and belief in a future. That so many posit hope to a time After an actual global catastrophe would seem to mean that since it is all a foregone conclusion anyway, why try?To these, the Work consists not so much of deeply caring, as alliance with the proper group. We being the gregarious being that we are leads to problems, in that sometimes caring in the right way leads to a necessary cracking of the social matrix in which we live embedded.
*well said, lance. now, what does it mean ?
*sustainability... what a forked road that is for a word...reminds me of the old saturday nite takeoffs of "" the word for the day"..hah,hah, hah..hey , my wife loves geneaology.. and it has exploded since the internet jumped up into our conciousness..any ways.. she took me for a little side trip comming back from Petefest last year..saw where my dutch ancestors lived in the 1870's and my irish ancestors...you know.. tombstones.. with old family names on them that belong to me...to me .. this is sustainability... family.. the old catholic version of the communion of saints...all the rest,all the material goods are just enabling things that allow our families to exist..yup, even the 300 year old oak....she also took me to horton , england...where the last horton out, left in 1200.. but the church they worshipped in is still there..they welcommed her home in the local pub.. asked her where the hell she'd been..""i been to london to visit the queen"sustain this.... your self first, and your family..enjoy the rest...tempus fugit...b but hey, whadda i no ?
*jeff.. bs..scoltland stopped building houses of wood beause the wood belonged to the king..no world view..this is bs... only in a society that has disposeable income can mankind even begin to consider OTHER than SELF..most of the world is engaged in subsistence living.. with most of the societies assuming an oligarchy...with a miniscule extremely wealthy upper class.. sitting on the backs of a population that mostly starves to death.. even in a so-called classless society like china... the bueaucracy lives at a higher consumption level that the masses...the first world consumes more.. but also has the luxury of contemplating how to conserve more... and preserve more...who could politically put forth a Tennessee Valley Authority today...or even start from scratch to build the interstate highway system today... none of it would get past the EPA..but in china , the only thing that sustains is family...didn't they just dam the Yalu River ?Europe abandoned wood as their primary residential building material when their forests could no longer sustain that construction.. we will do the same....since WWII. the pop. of the US has gone from apx 180 mill to 300 mill. the world has done likewise...( feel free to correct my numbers....the old memory bank is overloaded )in the '60's Nelson Rockefeller's son got his head shrunk in the Amazon basin by headhunters...the headhunters are probably loggers now......logging the rainforest for Nelson's offspring....tempus fugit....
*Mike-The book I mentioned above, "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn is a careful and systematic articulation of what I mean. If you are interested, I'd encourage you to read it.Jeff-The reason I chose the word weltanschaung was to use a perhaps unfamiliar word to represent a perhaps unfamiliar concept in the hope that some valid impression of novelty might stir a movement in someone's set of suppositions.... The background set of meta-decisions on a cultural or linguistic/concept-matrix level being what I mean by world-view and as such, something that even the most paradoxically provincial people have, use, and live and labor within.Also, I just borrowed the "HOK Guidebook To Sustainable Design." It's next on the list. FWIW, the reason I started this thread is that on Monday I go to work for a company in Santa Fe that focuses on sustainable building of all types.Lance
*We all make choices in our work every day; a carpenter may use fingerjointed studs or paralams, or steel, or OSB. A cabinetmaker today usually builds combining solids and veneers, that definitely stretch the resources, and there are new things every day....I just went to the two big woodworking shows in Germany, and I saw a LOT of reconstituted veneers....manufactured veneers that look almost identical to the real thing. Depending on the species, definitely an option; I don't have any clients that could afford a room veneered in genuine Macassar ebony, but in that species the reconstituted stuff looks amazing (that's just an example off the top of my head). So, anyway, it always has been a consideration for me; easy answers, I don't have. As far as Europe goes, again, no easy answers. France is doing a good job; more hardwood on the land there now than there was 300 years ago. Germany is supposed to be a leader in the Green movement, but the trend there is towards building with wood....Canada is exporting our residential building code all over the place now, to places that traditionally built with other materials....where is the wood gonna come from? I agree with some of the others, modern industrial forestry is doing a rotten job of looking towards our future.
*Jeff, please don't shove your worldviews down our throats; I know a lot of people think the world is going to hell and they want to do something about it, but the idea that I "MUST change to a less self-centered view" is as offensive as any other statement trying to force me into a way of thinking. And to be honest, I really couldn't give a crap what Europe thinks of the U.S. Myoptic and self-centered, maybe, but the processes and materials that we're using today provide far more affordable housing than the Europeans do, and our reliance on wood, no matter how these big companies are getting it, really is a sustainable practice. It is one of the few, if only products that can be regrown, can be used in a huge variety of ways, and can be fully recycled or composted.
*no , jeff, that's what you appear to be reading...individuals can make a difference... but first you have to feed, clothe, and shelter them.. then they can get down to making things better for the 4th generation..most of the 2d world and all of the 3d is stuck on empty.. the leading industrial nations have to do just that.. lead...but no one will follow until they are fed, clothed, and sheltered...carpe diem......tempus fugit
*Since the concept was defined by a UN study group, I expect after the next cosmic collision the only true "sustainable" to be taxes. I expect even the dinosaurs had taxes of some type, if only tribute to the alpha.
*Sorry Jeff, I see that as a lot more BS; I've traveled extensively throughout central and south America, and self-interest is what nearly EVERYONE has on their mind. Yeah, you'll find the tree-hanging marmot-loving tribe in the deep Amazon to be a "community based" group, but people are trying to live, and they're trying to live everywhere. And again, I haven't found the majority of foriegners don't like Americans, as others might seem to think. You are probably right that a lot of people in Europe might not like us, or not like some of our policies, but environmentalism and the ability to make hard financial choices that you accept are the benefit of the rich, not the poor. My father used to tell this great story. He was a paleontologist who traveled and worked extensively in Wyoming, Texas, and Africa. In Kenya, they took a guided drive to a National park. On the outskirts, the villagers were digging a huge hole, placing sharpened wooden spikes in the bottom. "What's that for?" one of the scientists asked. The guide replied that "it's to trap and kill a big elephant who lives around here". Shocked, they asked why the villagers would want to kill this beautiful, endangered animal. The guide expalined "It is hard to care about endangered species when those endangered species, in one evening, can completely wipe out their crops, and then your children starve. Ecology is the benefit of being in a rich country." This was in the early 80's. If you want to talk about sustainability, that's fine; let's talk about forest practices, recycling of building products, and the tradeoffs of using an engineered product that might save energy versus a traditional building approach. Let's get Armin to talk about forestry practices and I'll go knock on the door of the congressmen who lives next door and yell at him to change them. Let's get David to talk about his views on producing OSB. But your myoptic anti-American "let's share the wealth" routine just doesn't wash; sure, you can find a bunch of snotty people outside the US to support this view, but they have the benefit of already being rich enough to not have to worry about how their views affect others; and believe me, many of the environmental "ideas" for third-world countries have just as much, if not more impact than US policies.
*Jason's last paragraph says what we need to hear........if we want to continue this discussion in a tangable way.How do I; me; my little world; yes, that's me.....How do I have the subject of sustainabilty enter my work, thus my self-centered, and yes Mike is right, the true me first world. The point of this discussion, I hope, is to give me additional tools I, yes me, I can use while being the selfish provider that I am.Help me with a dozen clients.....they will lobby the U.N. ...........
*Where do all these "My way is THE RIGHT WAY " people come from? There's a thread in the Business section about Recycling by some Holier-than-thou whose bottom line is jealousy. The planet is being despoiled by evil rich people in RANGEROVERS!!! Karl Garson "Tear Downs" 6/8/01 10:34pmHere in California gasoline is half price and everybody is bitching and moaning. California voted overwhelmingly Democratic & for Al Gore who thinks just like this thread. The gasoline engine is evil and gas should be $4 a gallon so us evil Americans won't use so much of it for the reasons outlined above. Right now we're paying half of that and screaming about it. Those of you who just KNOW you right are determined to force the rest of us to live in your version of how the world should be. I DON'T WANT TO GO THERE!!Where do people like Ted Turner get off with telling us that George Bush is an evil man and dead set on ruining the planet? When Ted puts a few tons of fuel into his private jet and heads for his ranch in Patagonia is that okay just because he's such a good person? Go away, move to Europe, pay $5 for a gallon of gas. See if you like it amongst those Oh-so-wonderful Europeans. I was talking to a friend in Sweden last week who is not so happy with it. His income is taxed at 50%, another 25% sales tax when he spends it. His property taxes on his home just went up about 40%....and the only way he survives is to cheat the tax system by working under the table. He says he can't come over this year because the Swedish Kronor (?) just took a huge dump against the EVIL AMERICAN DOLLAR. About 18% I think in the last few weeks. Move there, go now and you can help them tell GWB hwo to run this country. You'll feel so much better there, no lumber yards, you can buy a Yugo or a Fiat and laugh everytime you fill the tank. By the way, WHY do you think those oh-so-clever Europeans drive those little shit boxes? Joe H
*Jason, My hats off to you, I think you said it all. People can scream all they want when they have money. In the rural area where I live loggers and mill employees need jobs, that's understandable. What I can't understand is the amount of waste and distruction that comes with current logging methods. I moved to Northern Michigan in 78, at that time the major land owner dictated a minimum cut diameter of 20 inches (chest height). This left alot of very large trees for the next cut 10 years down the line. Within 2 years it dropped to 18 inches then 16 now there is no diameter limit at all. It's very hard to find a standing tree any where more than 12 in. Considering Maple averages 10 years to the inch it's plain to see the insane demand for wood will never allow the forest to regrow to a mature state. The problem is componded when a person figures in birdseye trees. For starters birdseye grows at a slower rate, somewhere between 12 and 18 years to the inch and it rarely occurs in a tree less than 80 years old and even then the eyes are so small they have minumum value to woodworkers. It should be plain to see that this find figured wood is on the endangered list. Now lets address the issue of waste. A logging skidder cost about $60,000 a log truck $100,000 if you shop around and avoid the bells and whistles. Add to this fuel, tires, breaks, permits and tags. Incidentally tires and breaks cost about $10,000 per year. By now you should get the picture, lumbering is a expensive hard way to make a little money. The only way to make it pay is get the logs out as fast as possible. This means going in with your 40 ft long skidder and knocking over 50 trees to get one out. Most of the trees are knocked down and not destroyed outright. They contune to grow in a distorted twisted state robbing new trees of sunlight and nutrients further reduceing the forests ability to restore itself. You can't expect loggers to operate differently, no matter how you slice it you still have to earn X amount of dollars per day. The answer is force the price up get more money for cutting less wood. This is where corporate greed comes in. Over the last 5 years hard maple prices have increased 400% street value yet the loggers cut has remained virtually the same. The greens have put alot of pressure on timber companys to mend their ways, so far with mixed results. In this area we are blasted with TV ads stating what a wonderfull job corporate land owners are doing, insureing trees for future generations. What they don't tell you is the majority of trees will be turned into fiber products, simply because it will yeald more $$$ per acre per year. I don't know what the answer is, I try to use the least amount of wood possible and put each piece to the best use. Oh! I don't know about you guys but I get pretty darn perturbed when my mailbox is crammed full of the same catalogs month after month, to me this is nothing more than a waste of trees.
*This is what's so pathetic about Pergo -- identical copies of the same photograph of the same piece of wood every foot or two all over the floor. But is it environmentally better or worse than using real wood?The whole environmental thing has become worse than a religion. Each side has its dogma, and the statistics are all advocacy numbers. I don't know that there are honest answers to be had anywhere. They fight for the sake of fighting, like a game.-- J.S.
*We are not identical with our economy.If our current approach is found not to work, we are free to change. What I mean is- if the payments on the skidder are killing you, sit down, evaluate the numbers and decide. If it's not working out (and you took good care of your machine,) you'll be able to sell out. Maybe not locally, but someone will be interested.Then what? Well, remake yourself. Seasons change, always have. Survival is not a guarantee that life comes with. If we can survive and are doing well, then maybe we can afford kids if we want them. If we have kids in spite of the fact that we're in a marginal circumstance then they and we might suffer. But remember, our economy is not US, though it might seem like it since most of us no longer grow any food. But this too is something we are all free to attempt to do.
*Obviously, the majority view here is that sustainability is BS. I've deleted all the posts above that suggest that sustainable design goes beyond forest management, that the issue of sustainability vs. self-interest is a wake-up call to the way we live and that urban sprawl, ever-larger SUVs and disposable housing are issues for Americans - sorry to suggest that we do anything differently. I'm not anti-American, I'm not pro-Europe, I never suggested that the majority of foreigners don't like us, but I'm not myopic either. Yes, Jason, I also have been in the favellas of Brasil, the Amazon, and I have lived with families in South America. But I'm sure you're right - they have only self-interest, and, the Amazon is so far away, why do we care if they log it completely?After all, what has posterity ever done for us?
*jeff.... y do u couch your response in those terms...?sustainability is not BS.... there is a path between the chasms...i think what is going on is a rejection that the us is the problem.. when actually it can be part of teh solution..let's just look at teh kyoto accords as an example...most of the onus is put on the us.... but 80% of the polution source is china and india.. which do not ahve to comply because they are ""developing nations"" kind of like our progressive income tax...they are too poor to pay the tax .. and we are the 1% of teh wealthy...the analogy falls apart though becuse if we can't get a ahandle on the 80% polution source then a 50% reduction in the 20% polution of the US does nothing...back to the problem of basic needs first.. feed , clothe, and shelter...how do we do that so the 4th generation can benefit from our enviornmental progress ?
*More is never enough: you get to pick your own "more"More political power to tell others what to doMore for meMore for youMore control over othersMore McMansionsMore "affordable housing"More SUVsMore torching SUVs and houses "interfering" with ecologyMore abortionsMore euthanasiaMore kidsMore free condomsMore warMore peaceMore reading EcclesiasticsMore reading club of romeMore "me first"More philanthropyMore taxesMore tax cutsMore gunsMore gun controlMore food for the hungryMore snack foodMore nuclear weaponsMore arms controlMore "feeling good about myself bs"More "feeling good about you bs"More BSHistory defines that this goes on ad infinitum till the next big war sorts it all out for a few years.
*China and India are in a transitional period, as are we. They are becoming what we WERE. There's only a problem if we are becoming what we WERE. Life is a series of adaptations to shifting norms as changes change.Are we rolling with the punches or standing there and taking it like an enormous, stolid oaf?China and India will move through their "dirty" development phases and will then continue to change as their economies change and as their economies change their peoples will change. If, at that time, the US has a better future to sell, it is likely that they will skip directly to that tooling and not the current 1st world model that will, perhaps by then be obsolete.So, in a certain way, the US is researching the future. There will always be a majority that is too mired in its present to consider anything but getting the kids dressed and off to school. Like it or not, responsibility for the future falls to those that find themselves with ampleness enough to consider likely outcomes. If those with ampleness use it to foster soundness of approach, and time proves it to be such, others will want to buy it and so will end up following.
*Dang it, Jeff, hit the "undelete" key, wouldya!Living in logging territory in MT and CA, having been married to a logging engineer, and having worked in many parts of the Forest Service, i see blame aplenty to go around in the timber industry. The Forest Service has inflated its numbers to show more timber on the ground than it truly has, while the fallers grab trees marked to leave with the encouragement of the owners. Skidders rake the bark off leave trees in their haste and the FS timber sale administrator tries to stop it, maybe. My X tries to get salvage sales sold but is hamstrung by well-intentioned but one-dimensional tree huggers who don't realize the alternative is to cut green timber here or, more likely, Canada or Russia. I've done stand exam on sales that were re-planted five times, but the site was lost, only growing gooseberrry bushes now. Logging was the golden goose both the large and gypo companies spent years killing; those guys lived large, willing to accept the danger for the hundred-dollar days back in the 70's, with the mills running three shifts. That there isn't any more timber to waste is a function of the landscape rape NP and BN and USP and Champion in their turn did around here, but now they've high-graded and trashed every-other section of the checkerboarded land ownership out here, they think they have some traditional right to do the same to the public land as well. Ditto for the miners who are bitching because the MT citizenry voted not to allow cyanide leach pits with their dismal safety record. It's a miracle that the enviros got the heap-leaching project right on the pristine Blackfoot River halted. Who the hell needs another necklace at the cost of a watershed? I wish some of those who claim more is better could look at what an "All Merchantable Size" cut means in practical terms. This was the terminology used after the Monongehela Decision limiting clearcuts supposedly, but what it translated into on the ground was that all the suppressed and injured trees were left for seed stock while everything over a certain DBH (dianmeter breast height) was removed--in essence, no change, except the logging companies were now able to leave the slash, too, for fire starter, and not replant. BTW, your tax dollars are paying for retraining of those workers who got dumped out of the logging and milling industry, a parachute the buggy-whip makers didn't enjoy.I'm not so smart where big pictures are concerned, but in my own little corner of the world that has traditionally relied on extractive industries, i see fields and streambanks lost to weeds and erosion from overgrazingby cattle, streams lost to poisoning from mining wastes (MT has the largest Superfund site in the nation), and hillsides that will take centuries to slowly regain their covering that filters and purifies my drinking water. If you think the cost of running your A/C is high, try going without something a little more important like clean drinking water. Oh, that's right, some of your habitats are already long ago so polluted with agricultural chemicals that you can't drink your water. Clovis, CA, seemed to be on the cutting edge of self-destruction back in the early 80's when i lived there.And now i go back to my shop where i make foofarah no one needs out of exotic hardwoods, which i try to justify by saying i only use a thousand bf a year to make a living. Compromises all over the place, eh?
*Lance, while China and India may be moving through where we were in the past, comparing them to us is a little spurious:there was about a million or 1.5million of us then (1900).There is a BILLION Indians and even more Chinese (like, 1.5 Billion) doing it now. We can look back at our sins and shed a tear. When they are done with their sins I shudder at the thought...I do agree with your point, that if we find a better way they may better emerge from where they are now, but since they are an order of magnitude more populous I fear the time will be similarly short (so that if we had 100 years to improve, they would have about 10).All very scary to really think about. I will never forget flying in to Portland and seeing the logging from 30,000 feet and witnessing what splintergroupie is talking about. I can't imagine what that times 10 must look like.Making me always dream about smaller populations, or at least slower growing ones.The funny thing is that even if we all decided on population reduction and agreed to do it (and I can't figure how in the heck we'd do that!), our whole world economy is based on growth. When places have experienced even a degree of population growth RATE decline they have had big economic issues with it (France, some portions of the US).But every time I imagine what it would be like if there were fewer and fewer people, causing less sprawl, and a decline in the demand of all those other limited and hard-to-see-disapearing resources, I sure like to think that it would be a nicer world (with a nicer looking future).That so many on this board are concerned (even though I am sure we'd not all agree about what to DO) gives me some hope for our collective future.
*>Seems wasteful to me for a client that wouldn't know plain sawn oak from rift if you hit them over the head with itIt is wastefull... All you need to do is get Gucchi to make a kitchen with 2nds (knots and all) soon it would be the rave and we could use up all that perfectly good wood that no one wants because it's not perfect.I just built (for myself)the most beautiful butternut kitchen I ever saw using seconds that I paid 1.00 a board foot for.
*I started using up my many cardboard boxes full of pretty knots as top panels in my jewelry boxes. Now i order #2 walnut and oak to have enough of them!Butternut, eh? Fuzzy-wuzzy...
*>Butternut, eh? Fuzzy-wuzzy... No fuzzy-wuzzy...this is the greatest wood I've ever worked with. A bit soft (in the poplar range) but carves very well and tools nicely. I'm going to buy up all I can find to make computer desks, etc. out of.
*Butternut is in the same genus as walnut (juglans), as you probably know, sometimes stained to use as a substitute. I got quite a bit a couple years back, but as you say, a bit soft and it didn't stand up to the thundering herds at craft fairs so i'll use it on my own projects as well. Mine grew fur, though, requiring an extra coat of finish, and routing tended to tear it.
*i I still think it's bizarre to drive up on a cornfield and see them growing housesProbably a similar sentiment came from the drovers who saw the farmers turning over the tall grass prairies to plant corn.
*Sustaining the economy if not the environment. Joe Hhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=000118613908976&rtmo=V15w4w1x&atmo=rrrrrrrq&pg=/et/01/6/14/nhous14.htmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=000118613908976&rtmo=qKLXLJs9&atmo=rrrrrrrq&pg=/et/01/2/18/nham18.html
*Sustainability in construction materials will occur when folks are willing, or are compelled by circumstances, to pay what will be required for those materials. As long as it is cheaper to build with recklessly harvested materials, only those with enough money to afford the convictions of their conscience will build sustain ably. And until a lot of demand and money's there, most manufacturers won't provide sustainable materials. Fortunately, we are seeing the beginning of this process with items like straw board, MDF from factory waste, etc.. Case in point, I work in the theatre in California building sets. The movie studios are really the force that drives the materials available for us to build with here and the construction techniques that clients expect to see in the finished product. Typical construction for a wall is to make panels or "flats" framed from 1"X3" #2 pine and covered with a skin of nice smooth 1/4" plywood. Because the studios buy boat loads of 1/4" A2 luan or meranti plywood in 4X10 sheets, I am able to get the couple hundred sheets I need each year for $15 a piece down at the lumber yard. People in Indonesia are stripping their islands clear of forests to sell this plywood so cheap and bring much needed hard currency to their country. This material is not being harvested responsibly and Greenpeace et. al. have picketed the ships, the docks, and the studios to try and stop the flow of this commodity. About 10 years ago there was a round of protesting and the studios started looking for alternative products. One of the most successful of these was made by an American company that was producing 1/4" thick solid cardboard panels from recycled paper. These were used as wall covering in mobile homes. They decided that they could compete for the studio business and started making a special 4X10 panel that would not warp when painted. I started buying it because the price was only slightly higher and it seemed like the "sustainable" thing to do. Unfortunately the studios were less fond of the product than I was and after about three years the manufacturer stopped making the special panels because they weren't selling enough to be profitable. So we're all back to building with luan and probably will be until the last tree is cut down and peeled into veneer. I have hopes for a 4X10 panel made from a material like straw board but haven't found a manufacturer that will say something besides "maybe in a few years" when approached. It seems a shame to use such nice hardwood ply to produce a product whose lifespan is rarely more than a decade. Most theaters, and some studios, re-use what they can from a set but flats are pretty beat up after even five years. Many movie sets are landfilled after only a couple of months. But for now, it seems the economical thing to do.
*Look at what standing-seam roof panels come wrapped in: really nice 1/8th inch luan. Last fall I did a repair on a standing-seam roof that was flashed wrong. I had to tear off about 2 squares. The pile of luan that came with the replacement panels is enough shim stock to last years....decades.Most guys probably just toss it.Crappy work = redos = major waste.
*Regarding economical use of wood...I visited the FL Wright Johnson Wax Administration Building in Racine WI (mid 1930s) a while ago. (The guide pointed out the fine butternut desk top which was actually cherry-simulated formica. Never mind.) The floor on the mezzanine overlooking the mushroom-columned main room was walnut and it included sapwood which gave a fascinating striped look. The old cabinetmakers used to use only heartwood of walnut. Later the mills took to steaming walnut to convert the sapwood to the darker heartwood color. I think Wright deserves a lot of credit for legitimizing this economical use of walnut. Anyone know of any earlier decorative uses of walnut that highlight the contrast in heartwood and sapwood color?
*
What does the word mean to you, in practice, in theory?