Remodelista

10 Comments Add your own

• 1. lena  |  June 7th, 2007 at 11:54 am

  ohhh i love it.
  thanks for the info– i’m compiling ideas for when we can remodel.

• 2. dput  |  July 22nd, 2007 at 3:20 pm

  This site has a great article on alternative types of coutnertops and gives some guidance on which are environmentally friendly. After reading it, I am definitely not going with granite since there are so many other alternatives.

• 3. Born4thesurf  |  November 12th, 2007 at 3:58 am

  Wooden worktops I think are best. I was recently looking for suitable wooden kitchen worktops to improve my kitchen and found Barncrest to be an excellent provider of oak worktops, beech worktops and walnut worktops. Highly recommend them.

• 4. Peter  |  December 5th, 2007 at 4:48 am

  I like this idea! I was leaning toward soapstone after I read through the info at http://www.kitchen-counter-tops.net, but I’ll have to look into this as well! It just might be the winner! Thanks for the info!

• 5. Hudson  |  December 31st, 2007 at 4:17 am

  Portland cement is made by (a) mining limestone in large, often environmentally-destructive quarries and (b) burning it into dust using vast quantities of coal, a major contributor of greenhouse gases.

  Creating portland cement also releases dangerous quantities of mercury, arsenic, lead and other hazardous pollutants.

  All of the major portland cement companies (e.g. Holcim, Lafarage) have abysmal records of polluting the environment and also anti-competitive collusion to fix prices.

  So: Is this designer using portland cement salvaged from demolition projects? If she’s buying it by the bag, this is not a green product.

• 6. Janet  |  December 31st, 2007 at 3:53 pm

  On the Portland cement issue, if you look at their website you will find that they source their cement from a local supplier in the SODO neighborhood of Seattle, in keeping with their commitment to source all materials from less than 125 miles of their production. They also participate in a carbon offset program to mediate the impact of the cement production:

  “If recycling and local sourcing were not enough to make this one of the greenest building materials around, our vendor also participates in the Green Tags program to help offset carbon dioxide generated from the manufacturing process of the Portland cement used in Squak Mountain StoneTM.

  For every pound of portland cement manufactured, one pound of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, is released into the atmosphere. In addition to substituting fly-ash for portland cement in the Squak Mountain Stone countertop, the manufacturer makes a pound for pound investment in renewable energy through a program called Green Tags. The manufacturer calculates how many pounds of portland cement (and subsequently, carbon dioxide) is used to make Squak Mountain Stone countertops and then purchases enough Green Tags to offset that amount by 100%. The result is a net zero impact of Squak Mountain Stone’s cement on global warming”.

• 7. Hudson  |  December 31st, 2007 at 4:47 pm

  Janet, I’m afraid your well-intentioned response is rather weak to anyone who has spent much time researching and analyzing the environmental issues surrounding the cement industry — much as I like your site.

  Having spent many years of my life (google “Sam Pratt” and Grist) combating this irresponsible industry, I’m deeply skeptical even after reading your response.

  First of all, local sourcing is a rather limp justification for contributing to excess use of portland cement in our society. It is not at all clear from this company’s website if they are buying cement from a distributor within 125 miles of their business, or if the cement itself is manufactured within 125 miles. If, for example, they are buying their supplies from Lafarge in Seattle, consider this article:

  http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/111800_cstench10.shtml

  Questions that should be asked: Is their supplier getting cement from a wet or a dry process kiln? Is that facility burning tires or other wastes as fuel? What sort of track record does the facility and parent company have?

  Either way, the pollution impacts of portland cement (an industry whose emissions often travel hundreds of miles, by the way, depending on the height of the stack), depending on which pollutants you are dealing with. As noted above, carbon emissions are just one of the many pollutants issued by such plants.

  And note that in terms of health impacts, the composition of cement-related emissions is only part the problem; a significant health risk to host communities is due to the microscopic size of particles generated by the intense heat needed to break limestone down into cement.

  Cement plants generate huge quanitites of fine particulate matter (PM 10 and PM 2.5) which the most respected medical journals in our nation — and even the industry — agree cause measurable increases in heart attacks, asthma attacks, and death rates. Buying offsets in one location will not compensate someone who dies prematurely in another due to cement production.

  In short, offsets are a very weak way of dealing with the industry’s resistance to reducing their emissions and implementing better technology.

  Unless this manufacturer is advocating for their supplier to burn gas instead of coal, and switch to true state-of-the-art technology, they are primarily encouraging the abuse of our environment.

  Having worked with a major industrial engineering firm and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Consevation to conduct a world-wide search for the most advanced technologies available for cement manufacture, I can guarantee that this company’s source of cement is not supporting green cement making — unless they are importing their cement from Germany.

  Note also that pretty much all cement producers use some fly ash in their product — not to protect the environment, but to save themselves money. And this provides only modest improvements in efficiency. Some cement producers even use industrial wastes, municipal waste, medical waste and other hazardous/toxic wastes as fuel — and call it “recycling.”

  This is an industry which has invested millions in p.r. efforts in lieu of spending the billions necessary to clean up its act. Through phony “green building” awards and the mischaracterization of waste incineration as “recycling,” cement giants such as Lafarge and Holcim manage to bamboozle all to many consumers.

  Again, if they are contributing to additional production of portland cement, merely buying offsets is not a green practice. The wind and solar energy they support ought to be used to clean up our environment, not to ennable cement manufacturers. We urgently need to both reduce consumption and improve technology in industries such as the cement industry.

  This company should be attempting to procure cement from demolition sites and recycling it, not buying new cement.

  In general, the architecture and design fields are woefully ignorant of the harsh impacts of cement production. Because the material has such “plastic” possibilities, designers love it and tend to brush off the real-world consequences.

  Keeping things in perpsective, of course a few countertops are not the main problem with cement — rampant overbuilding is far worse. But the general acceptance and promotion of cement as “green” among designers helps keep the general public ignorant of this industry’s harmful effects.

  I urge Remodelista to educate itself and its readers more on the real-world consequences of the unnecessary overuse of portland cement.

• 8. Janet  |  December 31st, 2007 at 9:48 pm

  Thanks for your extremely informative response. The “green” home industry is tough to navigate. The more information we get the better.

  Would love to know if you have any recommended materials for counter tops.

• 9. Amee  |  January 22nd, 2008 at 9:49 am

  Hi,

  I love the lively discussion regarding the Portland cement and flyash in our products. First, I wanted to say that the use of flyash (which is from the Centralia, WA, coal plant) was again a deliberate attempt at making sure the need for cement was lower while gathering a waste material that is still entering into our landfills. And due to the recent demands for flyash in concrete, the price has escalated to a point where it is now the same price as Portland cement. It’s not a cheap “add-in.”

  Second, no, Portland cement isn’t the best thing out there. And early last year, I changed over to “low-carbon” cement or CAS cement. It’s not the same as Portland cement and emits fewer CO2 emissions during its manufacturing. I didn’t do it to save me money (because it costs three times the price of Portland cement), and I didn’t raise the price of our products one penny. I did it simply because it was a step toward making the product better, environmentally.

  I think people have become jaded over disingenous attempts by corporations to get into the “green gig” and greenwash their products, and I’m truly hurt by the insinuation that that is what I’ve done. I assure you, deeply, that this is not the case for me. And I never said that I made the greenest product in the world, but at least I put myself out there and tried, and I appreciate the support people have shown over the last few years. Thank you, Remodelista, for the nice words about what we’re doing here.

• 10. Janet  |  January 24th, 2008 at 7:50 pm

  Thanks for the Squak Mountain Stone update. We applaud your efforts and your product.

Leave a Comment

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed