The Environmental Legacy of Plastic Buildings
Editor’s Note : This Viewpoint piece was written in response to the article ‘Green Building with Plastics’ by Marion Axmith, Director General of the Canadian Plastics Industry Association, that appeared in the Nov/Dec 08, Issue 14 of SABMag.
PVC use is increasing in spite of the toxic by-products of the manufacturing process
by Tracey Loston
The case made by the plastics industry on behalf of PVC is full of misleading facts and figures that misrepresent or underplay the case against one of the most toxic building materials in use today. In addition, the plastics industry implies a connection between the use of their products and the acquisition of LEED points. No one product can give a project a point, and to imply that putting PVC in your building can “make a significant contribution” to your LEED scorecard is ludicrous.
When the US Green Building Council [USGBC] chose not to introduce a LEED point for avoiding the use of PVC in buildings, this was not an endorsement of the product, but rather an acknowledgement of the amount of work required to provide a true life cycle analysis for all products. It should also be noted that the report upon which this decision was based consistently scores PVC among the worst products for cancer and human health impacts.
In repositioning LEED to better address health care issues, The Green Guide for Healthcare [GGHC] was developed in the US as a companion guide by an independent steering committee comprised of green health care industry leaders. The GGHC targets the elimination of persistent bioaccumulative toxic chemicals [PBTs] associated with the life cycle of building materials. PVC is a specifically targeted material in this category. The GGHC advocates its removal not only from building materials, but also from medical equipment, piping and electrical conduit.
Another LEED offshoot product is The Living Building Challenge, released at Greenbuild 2006 by the Cascadia Chapter of the US and Canadian Green Building Councils. This document makes PVC-free buildings a prerequisite by encouraging project teams to “eliminate all known persistent bio-accumulative toxins [PBTs], carcinogens and reproductive toxicants from their specifications”[1] in order to qualify for Living Building status.
The industry contention that PVC is responsible for a small fraction of worldwide dioxin emissions is also misleading. This position only takes into account the effects of manufacturing. According to the US EPA, the overwhelming source of dioxin today comes from unregulated backyard burning and the incineration of medical waste.
While PVC is recyclable in theory, the Calgary landfill provides evidence this is not happening as it should
And what is this waste comprised of? PVC is arguably the largest source of chlorine in both waste streams. Both the International Association of Firefighters [US and Canada] and the Fire Brigades Union [UK] support the position of phasing PVC out of buildings due to the highly toxic effects of fires in buildings containing this material.
The industry also cites almost 100% recycling rates for post-industrial scrap. Sounds great, but what’s the big picture? The vast majority of PVC post-consumer products are not recycled. While the quoted number comes from Europe where it may be defensible, recycling efforts for post-consumer PVC in North America are miniscule.
Although overall plastic recycling rates are rising, the rate of production is rising at a much faster pace. Viewed in isolation, quantities recycled do not indicate success, especially when the tiny fraction of what that number represents is concealed. Where does the rest of it go?
Chemicals leaching from PVC and other plastics are already bioaccumulating up the food chain, affecting our ecosystems and human populations. Plastics have created the world’s largest garbage dump in the North Pacific Gyre, currently estimated to be twice the size of Texas. Addicted to Plastic, a documentary released in 2008 by Ian Connacher, visits this vast refuge for the world’s most durable material. Recently showcased on the Passionate Eye [January, 2009], it was the buzz on radio call-in shows discussing the possible banning of plastic bags in Calgary.
To address the big picture, we cannot look at greenhouse gas emissions in isolation. We should remind ourselves that sustainability is not just about global warming, and that PVC and other plastics are not responsible for energy efficiency.
We need to examine toxicity, conservation and quality of life in designs that require less consumption of both materials and energy. We must also acknowledge current green buildings do less harm; true sustainability is no harm, and a further goal towards restorative buildings is required to undo what we have already done.
The timeline to achieve this goal is relatively tight. To create one problem to solve another is not an effective solution. The truth is PVC production is on the increase, and the toxins associated with it are increasingly prevalent in our environment. PVC is not and never will be a sustainable choice of building material.
Tracey Loston, LEED AP, is a Sustainable Buildings Specialist with Kasian Architecture, Interior Design and Planning Ltd., Calgary.