[GSBN] Big News!!

Thu Aug 19 05:48:11 UTC 2010

  !!!Congratulations from Germany's FASBA!!!
Thank you for showing that it is worthwhile to be persistent. This will 
reasure europeans strawbale building movement.

Dirk Scharmer

Fachverband Strohballenbau Deutschland e.V.
c/o Dirk Scharmer
In de Masch 6
D-21394 Suedergellersen
Tel. 0049 4131- 727804
Fax. 0049 4131- 727805
Internet: www.fasba.de
Email: ds at fasba.de

Am 18.08.2010 07:41, schrieb strawnet at aol.com:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I sent this message out last night but never got a message back from 
> GSBN as I usually do when I send something to the listserve. That 
> makes me think that for some reason it didn't ever go out. If it did 
> and this is a duplicate message I apologize. Just seems like 
> significant enough news to be worth resending.
>
> Best,
>
> David Eisenberg
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: strawnet at aol.com
> To: GSBN at Greenbuilder.com
> Sent: Mon, Aug 16, 2010 10:13 pm
> Subject: Big News!!
>
> Hello all,
>
> I want share some great news. Earlier today, here in Chicago, Martin 
> Hammer's "comment"/proposal to include the strawbale code he’s been 
> working on over the past few years in California into the new 
> International Green Construction Code (IgCC) was approved by a 
> committee vote of 8 to 6! The IgCC is the new US code for commercial 
> (and high-rise residential) buildings that will become part of the 
> family of 2012 International Codes (I-codes). It will go through a 
> full code development cycIe with the rest of the 2012 I-codes next 
> year and there is work that will need to be done still to make sure it 
> doesn’t get rejected in that process, but getting it into the second 
> public draft of the code now is a very big step forward.
> I served on the drafting committee for this code from last summer 
> through the spring of this year. For more information about the IgCC 
> and to download the whole IgCC first public draft and the comments – 
> including Martin’s proposals for strawbale and earthen building 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 as comments 5-134, 5-135 and 5-136.
>
> I was the only proponent speaking in favor of it here, and there were 
> others who spoke in opposition. The initial motion was to disapprove 
> but it failed 5 votes to 9 after considerable and very mixed 
> discussion – which surprised me because of the nature of some of the 
> comments – that it was still not ready and needed some technical fixes.
> The failure of the motion to disapprove required a new motion and 
> Chris Mathis, an old building science friend from North Carolina, 
> offered a motion for approval. That was followed by more discussion, 
> with more concerns expressed that it wasn't ready. Then, just before 
> the second vote, Chris pressed the committee to push the envelope. He 
> said they should approve it and get it in, and rather than just having 
> the few people who are very knowledgeable about it work on improving 
> the things that still need to be done, “Let thousands of people look 
> at it and help improve it through the next round of the code 
> development process!” He said it was time to start pushing these 
> things through. Then they voted - and it passed 8 to 6! I was amazed 
> and 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 the straw 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 for earthen wall systems that I had initiated almost 10 years 
> ago and Bruce King has spearheaded over the past few years. I spoke in 
> support of both, but they were disapproved, though both received 
> encouraging suggestions to bring them forward again after addressing 
> non-mandatory/permissive language and other issues.
> Because they were heard one after the other, and I was the only 
> proponent for them, I got to speak first for each one and so I had a 
> total of 6 minutes (2 minutes each) to frame them all 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, the 
> low-impact, low-tech, climate beneficial, local/regional benefits, the 
> industrial/proprietary bias and difficulty in funding research, 
> testing and development for public domain, non-proprietary materials 
> and systems. I started off by talking about the fact that I had been 
> in buildings in Europe built with materials like straw clay and earth 
> that are twice as old as this country! And to say that these are 
> durable and safe ways of building when done properly. And when talking 
> about the ASTM earthen standard, I said that if they looked at it they 
> might think that it was too low tech to be reasonable compared to the 
> standards that they’re used to for concrete and other industrial 
> materials. But, I said, It was intentionally low tech. That I was 
> involved in initiating that standard almost ten years ago and it was 
> both to enable the use of those materials here and to reverse the 
> outlawing of earthen building in developing countries through the 
> adoption of modern industrial codes. That it was designed to enable 
> people to build safe, durable, healthy, and affordable buildings 
> anywhere in the world—including the in United States. I mentioned that 
> the committee that developed that standard included the leading 
> experts on earthen building and engineering from around the world and 
> was based on reviewing and incorporating the best from international 
> codes and standards for earthen building.
> After the first two went down, I was quite convinced because of the 
> comments that the sb proposal would share 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 codes and to Chris Mathis for his 
> leadership and visionary action on the committee.
> Onward!
> David Eisenberg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GSBN mailing list
> GSBN at greenbuilder.com
> http://greenbuilder.com/mailman/listinfo/GSBN
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sustainablesources.com/pipermail/gsbn/attachments/20100819/8992b3f0/attachment.htm>