[GSBN] Big News!!

Tue Aug 17 05:13:03 UTC 2010

 Hello all,

I want share some great news.Earlier today, here in Chicago, Martin Hammer's "comment"/proposal toinclude the strawbale code he’s been working on over the past few years inCalifornia into the new International Green Construction Code (IgCC) wasapproved by a committee vote of 8 to 6! The IgCC is the new US code forcommercial (and high-rise residential) buildings that will become part of thefamily of 2012 International Codes (I-codes). It will go through a full codedevelopment cycIe with the rest of the 2012 I-codes next year and there is workthat will need to be done still to make sure it doesn’t get rejected in thatprocess, but getting it into the second public draft of the code now is a verybig step forward. 

I served on the draftingcommittee for this code from last summer through the spring of this year. Formore information about the IgCC and to download the whole IgCC first publicdraft and the comments – including Martin’s proposals for strawbale and earthenbuilding and the EcoNest comment in support of straw clay go here:
http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/IGCC/Pages/default.aspx
http://www.iccsafe.org/CS/IGCC/Pages/Comments0810.aspx
You’ll find these listed ascomments 5-134, 5-135 and 5-136.

I was the only proponentspeaking in favor of it here, and there were others who spoke in opposition. Theinitial motion was to disapprove but it failed 5 votes to 9 after considerableand very mixed discussion – which surprised me because of the nature of some ofthe comments – that it was still not ready and needed some technical fixes. 

The failure of the motion todisapprove required a new motion and Chris Mathis, an old building sciencefriend from North Carolina, offered a motion for approval. That was followed bymore discussion, with more concerns expressed that it wasn't ready. Then, justbefore the second vote, Chris pressed the committee to push the envelope. Hesaid they should approve it and get it in, and rather than just having the fewpeople who are very knowledgeable about it work on improving the things thatstill need to be done, “Let thousands of people look at it and help improve it throughthe next round of the code development process!” He said it was time to startpushing these things through. Then they voted - and it passed 8 to 6! I was amazedand delighted! So it is going into the second public draft! 

There were two other similar proposals(they’re called “comments”) that were heard right before the strawbale comment.The first, from Paula Baker Laport and Robert Laport proposed including thestraw clay guidelines from New Mexico. Next was the other submitted by Martin,that one in support of earthen construction based on the new ASTM standard forearthen wall systems that I had initiated almost 10 years ago and Bruce Kinghas spearheaded over the past few years. I spoke in support of both, but theywere disapproved, though both received encouraging suggestions to bring themforward again after addressing non-mandatory/permissive language and otherissues. 

Because they were heard oneafter the other, and I was the only proponent for them, I got to speak firstfor each one and so I had a total of 6 minutes (2 minutes each) to frame themall in terms of the big issues I’ve been speaking to for all these years,including the coming challenges of ever-more limited and expensive energy, thelow-impact, low-tech, climate beneficial, local/regional benefits, theindustrial/proprietary bias and difficulty in funding research, testing anddevelopment for public domain, non-proprietary materials and systems. I startedoff by talking about the fact that I had been in buildings in Europe built withmaterials like straw clay and earth that are twice as old as this country! Andto say that these are durable and safe ways of building when done properly. Andwhen talking about the ASTM earthen standard, I said that if they looked at itthey might think that it was too low tech to be reasonable compared to thestandards that they’re used to for concrete and other industrial materials.But, I said, It was intentionally low tech. That I was involved in initiatingthat standard almost ten years ago and it was both to enable the use of thosematerials here and to reverse the outlawing of earthen building in developingcountries through the adoption of modern industrial codes. That it was designedto enable people to build safe, durable, healthy, and affordable buildings anywherein the world—including the in United States. I mentioned that the committeethat developed that standard included the leading experts on earthen buildingand engineering from around the world and was based on reviewing andincorporating the best from international codes and standards for earthen building.

After the first two wentdown, I was quite convinced because of the comments that the sb proposal wouldshare the same fate and, thankfully, I was wrong!

So hats off to Martin, Bruce,Matts, and many others who have worked so long and hard to develop these codesand to Chris Mathis for his leadership and visionary action on the committee. 

Onward!

David Eisenberg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sustainablesources.com/pipermail/gsbn/attachments/20100817/e07828ec/attachment.htm>