This topic is not limited to manufacturers but should also concern architects, engineers, developers and those involved in the building industry. Yours truly has been involved in specifying PVC products, hopefully in time, will do my part to decrease its use to lessen the load on Mother Nature. I am not sure or even aware if other Filipino advocators for Green Architecture know of this since some focus on building envelope design and waste management.

The full text can be downloaded here. The keypoints of the article is listed as follows:

Why is PVC a problem?

The manufacture, use, and disposal of PVC poses substantial and unique environmental and human health hazards due to the formation and release of hazardous organochlorine by-products. During the manufacture of PVC, dioxin and other persistent pollutants are created as by-products. During use, PVC products can leach potentially harmful additives like phthalate plasticizers and lead or other heavy metal stabilizers. Dioxins and other by-products are emitted when PVC is burned during incineration or in accidental fires in buildings, warehouses, or landfills. Because no significant markets exist for the recycling of PVC, the material will typically be landfilled, where additives can leach out.

How is PVC used in buildings?

Approximately 75% of all PVC produced is for building products. Piping, vinyl siding, and vinyl flooring are the largest and most familiar uses of PVC. Roof membranes are another growing area. PVC is also used in electrical wire, conduit, carpet backing, windows, door frames, wall coverings, siding, furniture, shutters and blinds, gutters, downspouts, waterstops, flashing, moldings, and elsewhere.

The alternatives to PVC in building materials?

PVC has replaced many “traditional” building materials such as wood, concrete and clay in many areas. For almost all PVC applications, more environmentally friendly alternatives exist that use more sustainable, traditional, local materials.

PVC can also be replaced by a variety of other, less environmentally damaging plastics, such as polyurethane, polystyrene, polyethylene, polypropylene, and bio-based plastics.

Bio-based plastics can be made out of products obtained from natural living raw materials such as starch, cellulose (from wood or cotton), horn (hardened protein) and raw rubber. The advantage of bio-polymers is that they readily degrade and can be composted. Converted natural polymers include vulcanized rubber, vulcanized fiber, celluloid and casein protein.

Rummaging over my cd archives, I found this document a professor gave about New Urbanism and Car Free Cities. It’s a six-part series with 33 pages of technical information compiled by carfree.com. The file is dated 2002 but I can say that the movement has been around since 1930’s originally as Transit Oriented Design and Traditional Neighborhood Design - all sharing similar attributes. The document’s partial excerpt about car free cities is as follows:

The Problem

The industrialized nations made a terrible mistake when they turned to the automobile as an instrument of improved urban mobility. The car brought with it major unanticipated consequences for urban life and has become a serious cause of environmental, social, and aesthetic problems in cities. The urban automobile:

• Kills street life
• Damages the social fabric of communities
• Isolates people
• Fosters suburban sprawl
• Endangers other street users
• Blots the city’s beauty
• Disturbs people with its noise
• Causes air pollution
• Slaughters hundreds every year
• Exacerbates global warming
• Wastes energy and natural resources
• Impoverishes nations

The challenge is to remove cars and trucks from cities while at the same time improving mobility and reducing its total costs.

The Solution

The urban automobile can only be supplanted if a better alternative is available. What would happen if we designed a city to work without any cars? Would anyone want to live in such a city? Does it make social, economic, and esthetic sense? Is it possible to be free of the automobile while keeping the rapid and convenient mobility it once offered?

Public transport is typically a disagreeable and slow substitute for the car. It needs to become a pleasant experience and should attain the average speed of a car in light city traffic. This can be achieved using proven technology, but densely-populated neighborhoods are a prerequisite for rapid mobility and economical public transport. Fortunately, dense cities can also offer a superior quality of life.

We should build more carfree cities. Venice, the largest existing example, is loved by almost everyone and is an oasis of peace despite being one of the densest urban areas on earth. We can also convert existing cities to the carfree model over a period of decades.

Design Goals

The design of cities is driven by three principal needs:

• High quality of life
• Efficient use of resources
• Fast transport of people and goods

Design Standards

The fulfillment of these needs in a carfree city gives rise to the following design standards:

Rapid Transport

Provide fast access to all parts of the city. In a city of one million it should be possible to get anywhere in considerably less than an hour. Passengers should never have to transfer more than once.

Nearby Stations

Both in consideration of time and of the limited mobility of small children, the elderly, and the infirm, nearby transport halts are required. The design standard is a five-minute walk.

Nearby Green Space

Green space should be available within a five-minute walk of virtually every front door.

Four-Story Buildings

Buildings should generally be limited to a height of four stories because higher buildings appear to be harmful to the people who must live in them.

Economical Freight Transport

City economies depend on fast, economical freight transport. A city which intends to keep trucks off its streets must make workable provisions for freight transport.

Going Carfree

The carfree city can be built. Venice is proof enough.

The four billion inhabitants of the developing world seem eager to adopt Western patterns of car use. They should be advised of the costs and encouraged to think about better solutions. Can the planet carry the ecological burden? The developed nations cannot deny developing nations the use of technology and resources that are used in the developed nations. Since most of the world’s cars are found in the developed nations, they must take the lead in designing and building carfree cities.

Carfree cities probably must become the norm by the end of the 21st Century, due to energy constraints. We should begin now to prepare for the change, which is an opportunity to build urban environments superior to any ever known.