"Trains vs. Planes vs. Automobiles"
The last part really caught my eye:
"...in some cases, construction is the biggest polluter. Roads were responsible for more particulate matter than tailpipes, for example. For rail travel, operating the trains actually accounts for less than half of a system's greenhouse-gas emissions. The implication: Making concrete and asphalt in a more environmentally friendly way can be just as important as getting vehicles to run more efficiently. In other words, it's not just the road you take, but what it's made out of, too."
Again, sustainable construction is a big deal, an important piece of the green movement. Running a cutting-edge green concrete company isn't glamorous, but I'd bet that it could be profitable in the near future. A smart green person could have an advantage on the usually slow-to-adapt traditional construction industry. I'm just sayin'...
2 comments:
Do you think this will happen in the large urban areas first and then move to the rural areas? Would a national policy regarding sustainable construction help speed this up?
Seems like progressive ideas always get tested first in urban areas, usually in the Western U.S. (or Europe for that matter), and then spread to the suburbs, and sometimes all the way out to rural areas.
Urban & suburban is where the people are, so that's where any government infrastructure investment should be directed: connecting urban & suburban (electric buses?), connecting urban to other urban areas (high-speed trains?), and making inner-urban areas more walkable.
To answer Trev's second question, absolutely a national policy towards sustainable construction would absolutely help green builders. Fortunately, Obama is calling for huge infrastructure investments, which will be green investments, that will require a lot of manufacturing and construction. So, good times are ahead for manufacturers and builders who have got out ahead of the Green Revolution.
Post a Comment