Thanks for your question! The short answer is that if the choice is being made based upon environmental considerations, there is research evidence to support live trees as having less environmental impact.

In a life cycle assessment of live vs. artificial trees it was determined that an artificial tree would need to be used for at least 20 years before the environmental impacts would be less than purchasing a live tree each year.  On average, most artificial trees are kept about 6 years. The full study is available at:

http://www.ellipsos.ca/site_files/File/Christmas%20Tree%20LCA%20-%20ellipsos.pdf

In terms of environmental benefits, live trees are often locally available from growers and sellers within the region, trees sequester carbon, are replanted, renewable, biodegradable and non-toxic.

Naturally, there are other reasons why people choose artificial trees, including convenience, and if someone is able to keep using the same artificial tree for more than 20 years the environmental impacts may be more in balance.

I have to admit I am skeptical.  Intelligent people have been claiming the benign environmental nature of chemically preserved wood for over 50 years – including products using creosote, penta, and CCA – and each of these products lead to superfund clean-up sites.  So the industry’s record is not good in terms of understanding the nature or risk of these kinds of products.  I still remember a conversation I had back in the late 1980’s with a professor at a well know university, as he confidently espoused the benefits of the product since the materials were permanently chemically bonded to the wood.  I asked “IF the chemicals are permanently bonded, why is there only a 50 year guarantee, and why does wood appear to eventually rot?"  He didn’t have an answer.  ACQ has not been without its problems either.  As CEO of a company that has sold a lot of ACQ, I know the devil’s in the details and there is a LOT of ACQ product in place without appropriately protected fastening systems.  Any product that needs “special” fasteners - different than are historically the case -  is a challenge.  It doesn’t mean it can’t work – it just means it is potentially problematic.  I do not have enough detail about the new osmose product to have an opinion at the moment but, the test is: are you required to where gloves and a mask when working with the product?  In general, and in my experience, IF it is toxic to work with it becomes toxic to the environment.

- Doc

Hi, I am personally a huge advocate of what are generally described as Russian or Finnish Fireplaces (see Tulikivi fireplaces on the web), generally large masonry masses that heat from very hot fires for brief time periods time (e.g., 1-2 hours) and then radiate from that mass for extended periods (e.g., 24 hours). However, although they are wonderful, and I have had three, they also tend to be quite expensive.  For specific information on individual wood burning stoves I would recommend  www.metaefficient.com or www.hearth.com as good sources of information and comparisons... - Doc

For information about FSC available products, you can search the following databases and websites:

This site will allow you to search for FSC certificate holders by state and shows about 460 companies in California:

http://www.fscus.org/certified_companies/?num=20

For more information about a specific company and the products they produce, you can click on the name of the company in the listing or search this database for additional details about the company you are interested in:

http://www.fsc-info.org

This database can also be searched by product and should be able to answer your questions!

First, hands-down, the lowest impact structural material available (as determined by rigorous environmental life cycle analysis) is solid sawn lumber.  Second, a 2x 10 can be produced from a 12 inch diameter (dbh) log.  A 16-18 inch diameter log will yield many 2x10s.  Logs of that diameter are commonly produced from trees 25-30 years of age (Southeastern U.S.), 40-80 years of age (Pacific Northwest), 60-100 years of age (Northeastern  U.S. and Canada).  None of these age categories fit the common definitions of old growth (e.g., in the Lake States region old-growth forest is frequently defined as greater than 120 years of age).

The question of whether prohibiting use of solid lumber of large size will promote a greater number of large, old trees is interesting.  About 60% of dimensional lumber used in the United States comes from privately owned forest lands in the United States .  Prohibition of the use of solid lumber and encouragement of the use of composite lumber (both of which are increasingly encouraged in green building standards) is sending the wrong message to landowners and forest managers. The promotion of composite materials over solid wood discourages woodland owners from making the commitments (and taking on the costs and risks) that go with growing trees for very long time periods before harvesting (e.g., 25 to 100 years depending on the region and species). Instead, the composite market signals encourage landowners to grow trees over very short rotations (e.g., less than 30 years), harvest them when small, and feed the growing composite products market that has become so trendy.  In extreme cases, the message landowners may be getting is to make sure to avoid allowing trees to become large and old enough that they will be viewed as "candidate old growth" and then subject to potential reserve status or protection that would limit the landowner’s opportunities to receive financial benefit from their decades long commitment to land stewardship.

The bottom line is that wood is a green product and using wood products encourages the continuation of working forests across the landscape. Using larger dimensional lumber specifically encourages the management of forests to produce this type of product which generally takes more time and asks for an expanded commitment from the landowner.  An effective way to reward woodland owners’ commitments to land stewardship and to encourage a continuation of that commitment is to value all of the products and services that forests provide, including recreation and scenic beauty, as well as wood and fiber as raw materials for our buildings and economy.

Jean: Thanks for your questions!  First – environmentally friendly lumber is available at most building materials stores these days, you just need to be patient because not all staff at all locations are familiar with the types of question you ask, although they are increasingly well informed.  Based on your comments about Minnehaha street I assume you are in the Minneapolis, MN area -  and there are a couple of very good building material suppliers there.  I would suggest either “The Remodeler’s Choice” on 28th Street in Uptown Minneapolis or “Shaw-Stewart Lumber” on Johnson Street as good choices.  Both are Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) chain-of-custody certified to provide FSC wood products and both should be reasonably familiar with your issues.  Second, as for your question about marmoleum over gypcrete, the issue is the gypcrete is so absorbent that there is the possibility that the adhesive used on the marmoleum will not adhere well, or that there will be adherence issues over time.  That is why some people are reluctant to put those kinds of flooring products over the gypcrete.  To help address this, gypcrete requires a sealer prior to using an adhesive.  In addition, materials requiring special adhesives (e.g. Marmoleum due to the linseed oil in the product) must use the procedures specified by that product (e.g. Marmoleum).  In other words, neither party is likely to guarantee it.  Hope this helps, and your marmoleum dealer should be able to more specifically clarify their requirements for you (exact adhesive and the like), including use with gypcrete which I assume they would have significant experience with.  - Doc

Steve:

The Dovetail Report "Green Building Programs in the U.S.: A Review of Recent Changes Related to Designation of Environmentally Preferable Materials" may provide answers to some of your questions.

All of the LEED programs (LEED-H, LEED-NC, etc.) award points for use of "rapidly renewable materials" (i.e. materials that renew in 10 years or less).  Also, many of the regional, state, and municipal green building programs that used LEED as a template in development award the use of rapidly renewable materials; these programs include Atlanta EarthCraft, Minnesota Green Star, California Build-It-Green.  An educated guess would be that at least 60 of the nation's 83 green building programs reward the use of rapidly renewable materials.

Besides LEED, the other two national scope green building programs - the NAHB National Green Building Standard and the Green Globes program - reward the use of biobased (i.e., renewable) materials, but do not contain the "rapid renewablilty" terminology.

Hope that helps!

Thanks!

Clearly the winds of November come early, for you! In general, the key to insulating an older home is in evaluating the risks. Old homes last well and resist rot and similar problems because they were designed to “breathe.” Many remodels run into problems when they begin “tightening up” a house (insulating and sealing) without considering the total impacts of what is being done.

Probably the simplest, safest, thing you can do to save energy on an old home is to a) significantly insulate the attic with some nonabsorbent material such as fiberglass insulation (because moisture is flowing in and out of the house constantly) and b) eliminate major air leaks that exist... Especially in the ceilings.

A really good starting point would be to invest in an energy audit this fall with a firm that can do an infra-red test of your house to identify major weak points. Most heating and cooling companies can provide that test. They need a 40 degree differential (interior-exterior temperature) to get a good reading, so October is often a good month in Minnesota to do that. That will identify key weak points you can plug up.

The next two steps I often recommend on an older home that bring a good bang for the buck are to get a water heater blanket for your water heater and a low volume shower head for your showers if you don’t already have them. Hot water is a major energy user in most homes, but especially in older homes where the pipe runs are often long and heaters are in cold damp cellars.

Finally, if you are willing to go the next steps, you would want to completely remove the interior walls, insulate with any of a variety of insulations, and put in a vapor barrier that will protect against moisture infiltration into that wall from the inside of the house. This is a major project but is really important if you want to avoid long term problems in the house. The key to this type of project is that you are better off to do it completely and all at once, as doing it partially can lead to problems. A common example is the use of blown in insulation without installing a quality vapor barrier. This practice led to a multitude of homes with moisture trapped in the walls resulting in rot.

For insulation, there are good cellulose based insulation (generally treated to inhibit water absorption), cotton-based, and formaldehyde-free fiberglass insulations. All work and have their plusses and minuses on the green front. New windows may be critical also if yours are the originals. There really are some wonderful replacement windows out there today. There is no consensus on what makes a “green” window today, although I personally like renewable materials so would choose a wood replacement.

As for pricing, I wouldn’t dare guess as there are so many variables in an older house (including wall thickness). But I can tell you a thousand dollars of attic insulation will generally pay back quickly these days.

Finally, the greenest thing you can do in an older home is to minimize the temperature difference between the outside and inside as much as possible during those transition months of the fall and spring. This means that it could make a big difference if you set your thermostat in the 60’s in the fall and spring instead of 70’s. Your body will adapt to that change easily as the climate is changing as well. Of course, the best home insulation is? A sweater! I hope this helps!...

- Dr. Jeff - The Green Doctor!

Thanks for your question related to Dovetail's commentary about what makes a good window.

On double hung window use - the details of what to do is highly dependent on location. In general, the most important consideration will be the prevailing winds for your region (in Wisconsin they tend to be from the Northwest) and also the local geographic impacts on those winds from valleys, mountains, cities, etc. Even large physical structures (e.g.Barns, silos, trees, other houses) will have a significant local affect! A bit of experimentation may be needed before you come to a final solution.

The basic approach to cooling your house with natural ventilation is to provide access for cool air to move into your house at the lowest point possible on the side toward the wind (upwind) and an escape for the warm air at the highest point possible on the downwind side.

Assuming your winds are dominantly from the west you would open the lower part of the lowest windows on the west side, and the upper part of the highest windows on the east. In fact, many older homes often had windows in the attic that you could open and close to amplify the affect!

It is a bit of an experiment, but in general IF you open the top of windows on the highest downwind point first (east), you can find the cool air quickly by going around and opening windows on the north and west side. When you open them you should feel a slight rush of air coming in. Open and close windows until you find a point where the most air comes in, and then open the rest on that side. From then on it is simply a balancing act of finding the best combination of # of windows to open on each area. Shortly you will find that, in most cases, the same windows will work 90% of the time.

Remember: DON'T open all the windows in the house, as that can diffuse the air flow and disrupt internal air patterns. Just like in a chimney, you need to develop a draft!

Once you have determined the best flow pattern for your house you can significantly augment the effectiveness by adding reflective window shades (e.g. White insulated) to your windows to keep the sun out. Then it is often about timing! Meaning, you open your windows when an air flow can be generated and close them when the air is too hot. At my house we open our windows late evening and then close them sometime in the morning as the air heats up. This way we use the household insulation and reflective shades to keep the house cool during the heat of the day. Evening is often the toughest time to figure out what to do, as the house has had time to heat up a bit while the outside is starting to cool down. A simple exterior house thermometer helps decide at which point to reopen the windows. In addition, a porch on the south side helps immensely, and a fan in the downwind windows can help develop the airflow when necessary (blowing out).

- Dr. Jeff - The Green Doctor!

As you so rightly question, the assumption that something is green simply because it grows quickly is inaccurate. We at Dovetail have discussed this at length in our article about bamboo flooring.

The key issue is that the only way to compare apples to apples on renewable products is to have the same expectations for both materials. That is, today we expect forests to be certified by highly vetted international systems if they are going to qualify as being green. We should have no less expectation of all other renewable materials. One simple and quick option for bamboo would be to require it to be organic. Alternately we need a creditable certification system for bamboo which could take some time. (As just a note: it is possible today for bamboo to qualify as certified if it is a component of a certified forest, and thus would come under that overall label.) However, in general and especially in the absence of a creditable evaluation system for bamboo, local wood flooring from well managed forests in North America is probably much more environmentally friendly than bamboo imported from overseas somewhere.