By: Jonathan Hiskes; Sustainable Industries Magazine
Anthony Ravitz, Google’s project coordinator for real estate and workplace services, opened his talk in Vancouver, B.C., Thursday with an impressive fact: the world’s largest software company is opening 40,000 square feet of office space a week. Talk about fast growth.
And none of those workplaces, he said, would use any of the materials on the red list developed by the Living Building Challenge, which include mercury, asbestos, PVC, formaldehyde and lead. That second fact explained why Ravitz’s was one of the most crowded sessions at Cascadia Green Building Council’s Living Future conference. The conference attracts hundreds of architects, contractors, planners, vendors and others with a say in the materials that make up our homes and workplaces.
And they know that when one of the West Coast’s hottest companies swears off unhealthy products, the effect is sure to ripple outward through their industries.
Ravitz said Google’s decision stems from two principles: “focus on health and vitality” of its employees and “healthcare is costly.” In other words, the company wants to avoid illness from potentially dangerous materials. Sounds simple enough, but it’s difficult to know everything that’s in materials like carpet and paint.
“We need better transparency,” Ravitz said. “We don’t have complete information about what’s in our products. It’s not readily available. Until we have that, it will be difficult to make the best decisions.”
That’s not for a lack of programs addressing building materials. Ravitz spoke alongside Tom Lent of the Health Building Network, which works to promote healthier materials. “There are a lot of product certifications, Ravitz said. “A whole lot. It’s really confusing, even when you know a lot about this topic.”
He pointed out that the U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act hasn’t substantially changed since 1976. “I used to think that maybe the government was taking care of us,” he said. “I think the EPA would like to, but they don’t have the regulatory authority.”
That’s created the need for other groups to step in. Ravitz said Google relied on the International Living Building Institute and the Healthy Building Network to advise it on what chemicals and materials to avoid. It also drew several off the EPA’s Chemicals of Concern list.
“I don’t want to go out there and say ‘Google thinks these chemicals are bad and we don’t want them in our buildings,” he said. “I’m not a chemist.”
Hence the reliance on the other groups. One of the presenters wrote up a handy list of rules for choosing building materials, inspired by writer Michael Pollan’s food rules:
If they won’t tell you what’s in it, you probably don’t want what’s in it.
Consult your nose – if it stinks, don’t use it.
Just because almost anything can kill you doesn’t mean our building products should.
If it starts as hazardous waste, you probably don’t want it in your house.
If it is cheap it probably has hidden costs.
Question the generation of hazardous waste rather than where to put it your building.
Use materials made from substances you can imagine in their raw or natural state.
Avoid materials that are pretending to be something they are not.
Question materials that make health claims.
Use carbohydrate-based materials when you can.
Pay more, use less.
Regard space-age materials with skepticism.
And here’s the Living Building Challenge’s list of red list materials and chemicals:
Asbestos
Cadmium
Chlorinated Polyethylene and Chlorosulfonated Polyethlene
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)
Chloroprene (Neoprene)
Formaldehyde
Halogenated Flame Retardants
Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs)
Lead
Mercury
Petrochemical Fertilizers and Pesticides
Phthalates
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC)
Wood treatments containing creosote, arsenic or pentachlorophenol