Looks like an important book—I’ll also look into getting a copy.
The building codes are far from perfect, and it’s true that advocates for building with more natural methods and materials like passive-solar design and thermal massing in structures that use
straw, straw-clay,
cob, et. al., don’t have the financial resources of the associations that represent producers of cement, lumber products, steel fasteners, windows, various insulations, etc.
Energy efficiency is, as the
book review summary points out, largely a matter of high tech, and often very high embodied energy equipment and materials.
One reason materials like straw don’t have a deep-pockets advocate is that it’s ubiquitous and available wherever grain crops are grown. Production can’t be cornered by a few highly profitable manufacturers. Straw, and many other more-natural building materials like it, will require grass-roots support in the effort to go mainstream.
This is an important conversation because over 40% of the energy consumed in N. America (all sectors, including transportation and manufacturing) is used to operate buildings—to heat, cool, illuminate, and electrify. Another 10% of all energy consumed in N. America goes into producing building materials—concrete, roofing, windows, insulation,
wood products, wiring, etc. Imagine a future where that energy
footprint isn’t 50% of all energy used, but much smaller, like 25%? Could we do this by using ultra-low embodied energy materials like straw paired with passive
solar and thermal massing to produce super energy efficient structures? Perhaps not in all climates, but certainly much more than we do now.
If we’re building super-insulated and energy efficient structures with high-tech and high-embodied energy materials, we’re taking several steps backwards (into embodied energy debt) before these high performance buildings have a net positive impact. Building energy efficient structures with low-tech and low embodied energy materials has a more immediate net positive impact.
Just because the conventional building material producers dominate the conversation doesn’t mean natural materials advocates have no voice. We do. In the past seven years three model codes entered the International Residential Code after many years of work and numerous code council hearings:
IRC Appendix S: Strawbale Construction, Appendix R Light-Straw-Clay Construction, and Appendix You (U) Cob (Monolithic Adobe) Construction.
Why is this important? Because most building code jurisdictions (states, counties, cities) don’t have the resources to develop their own building codes from scratch. Instead, they adopt model building codes like those vetted and published by the IRC. Once a code jurisdiction has adopted a code like
Appendix S, or
Appendix R, or
Appendix You (U), it’s very difficult for building code officials in that jurisdiction to deny a building permit because they’re not comfortable with the wall system (e.g., straw bale, light-straw-clay, cob, et. al.).
A lot of people helped with the code effort, and thus paved the way to make it easier for others to build with straw bales, light-straw-clay, and cob. Much of it was done by members of the California Straw Building Association (CASBA) and the Development Center for
Appropriate Technology (DCAT). A good deal of the effort was pro bono—volunteered by professionals with a passion for mainstreaming more natural building materials.
If you want to help with this David vs. Goliath effort, visit the website of an organization that is advocating for the building material or methods you would like to see advanced, and make a donation. CASBA is at
http://www.strawbuilding.org. DCAT is at
http://www.dcat.net. The Ecological Building Network is at
http://www.ecobuildnetwork.org.
Jim Reiland
Many Hands Builders
8
