MATERIALS

According to the reading, why is the industry moving from “cherry-picking style labeling (BPA-free or 50% recycled content)” to material ingredient disclosure? What are the effects of requiring ingredient disclosure on other products, not just building products?

“Transparency is important,” stated William McDonough, cofounder of Cradle to Cradle (C2C), in the article by Paula Melton titled Made of the Right Stuff? New disclosure tools highlight data on the sustainability of building products. Public disclosure of ingredients exposes products and, in their vulnerability, expresses their desire to become better products for the environment and for people. The “cherry-picking style” played up one or two environmentally friendly initiatives (like “BPA Free”) while hiding all other item ingredients that may or may not be hazardous. Fully exposing product ingredients, whether building products or not, encourages these products to be healthier in its entirety. This article explains how further encouragement is given by companies such as C2C, “C2C is a ‘multi-attribute’ certification that helps manufacturers improve on a range of environmental and health impacts. It is distinguished by a focus on gradual removal of all toxic ingredients."

The article states that although “consumers may not have extensive knowledge of the ingredients in cleaning products or shampoo…experts can serve as ‘a lens for interpreting that information’”. With fully disclosed product ingredients, experts can begin educating everyday consumers on what exactly they are purchasing and how it can impact their health. 

Why should designers be concerned about the embodied energy of products?

Per Material LIFE, Embodied Energy of Building Materials by Cannon Design, Embodied Energy is “defined as the total energy inputs consumed throughout a product’s life-cycle. Initial embodied energy represents energy used for the extraction of raw materials, transportation to factory, processing and manufacturing, transportation to site, and construction. Once the material is installed, recurring embodied energy represents the energy used to maintain, replace, and recycle materials and components of a building throughout its life.”

“In the United States, 6% of all energy consumed is used to manufacture and transport building materials (EIA 2009).” And within these 6%, 50% of the building’s total embodied energy is attributed to the envelope and structure. 13% of a building’s embodied energy is attributed to interior finishes. On top of this, the article states that “embodied energy accounts for the majority of a building’s energy footprint for approximately the first 15-20 years of a building’s life-cycle.”What this means is that the materials selected by the building designers are arguably responsible for impacting 6% of the total energy consumption of the United States, defining a building’s energy footprint for about 15-20 years. Building systems use seems to be the obvious answer for the building’s biggest energy user, but in actuality it takes about 20 years for the Building’s operational systems to overtake the amount of embodied energy within the building materials. 

Architects and Designers have the capabilities to reduce not only a building’s energy footprint for 20 years, but reducing the amount of energy consumed nationally, just in carefully selecting what materials are used in constructing and finishing a building project. 

If you wanted the BAC to follow Google’s example for healthy materials, how would you go about it?

The first step is to lead by example. The BAC would need to undergo a heavy renovation in order to remove all items that contain substances found on the Living Building Challenge Red List and US EPA’s Chemicals of Concern list. Then the BAC would need to use the Healthy Building Network’s Pharos product ingredient and hazard screening tool to ensure all materials found in the school building are hazard and toxic free. Like Google, who competes for talent around the world, the BAC would need to advertise its focus on occupant health, being an advocate for prudent material selection. 

The next step is to teach. The BAC needs to imbed the importance of healthy material selection into all of its courses, not just Sustainable Systems, and especially in Studio. Each student should leave the BAC with the following points of knowledge:

1. Students need to become familiar with every tool available for selecting healthy materials and be familiar with items on the Red List and US EPA’s Chemicals of Concern list. Students need to understand the importance of this effort and how detrimental these hazardous chemicals are to building occupants. 

2. Students need to shift their design focus towards using architectural elements efficiently in order to eliminate finishes, FFE or MEP items that may contain items on these hazardous lists. For example, ducts oftentimes contain flame retardants, so how can the building be designed so it requires the least amount of ducts? Fabric shades also contain flame retardants, so instead of leaving it to the Client to search and pay a premium for hazardous-free fabric shades, how can the building design be modified in order to accomplish the effects that a fabric shade would create? Products that require adhesives oftentimes contain formaldehyde. What other wall, ceiling and floor finishes can be specified in order to avoid such products? Students need to be trained in order to find solutions to these issues early on in the design phase.

3. Students need to be taught effective ways on how to communicate with and educate Clients. The article “A Peek Inside Google’s Healthy Materials Program” quotes Anne Less of Mary Davidge Associates, a consulting firm that supports Google’s sustainable facilities program, in stating that “if we had more partners in this effort, there would be a lot more leverage.” Students need to leave the BAC and be advocates for this effort at whatever firm they join. Getting design firms fired up for implementing healthy materials in design projects is easy; getting Clients and Contractors on board is the real challenge. Oftentimes this is due to budgetary constraints or a lack of planning early on in the project. The Architect may specify a product found within the Healthy Building Network’s Pharos product ingredient and hazard screening tool, but the Contractor may suggest another relatively unhealthy product of similar performance but half the cost. The Owner, fully aware of the health implications of both products, chooses the cheaper option in an effort to preserve the Project Budget. If students are educated on successful methods of discussing with Clients on the long term benefits of healthy materials and establish a believable budget early in the design phase, it may keep these items through construction and establish the Client as a partner and advocate of this effort.