EC Products Go Green

While the move to Green EC is long overdue, in the end it will come down to cost. Unless acheiveing sustainability is incented into the project plan, this type of action will be more expensive and likely cause the contractor to lose out in the bidding process.

Maybe adding some incentives for companies who use these materials to help offset any extra costs incurred would help spur the shift to green technology.

Despite the cost, some people are moving forward with this idea. The Pacific Restoration Group of Corona has been commissioned by Governor Schwarzenegger to do $7.8 million dollars worth of erosion control to prevent further damage from the Poomacha wildfires in California.

Check out the details here.

Using biodegradable products seems like a good idea, although in some areas it may not be appropriate. If the land became unstable due to a fire, it is likely it could happen again. Something like a retaining wall won't fail from a fire and will still allow the vegetation to grow back again and again. In the end I agree that it will come down to price and what is easier.

Do you think price would be such an issue if more people cared about these kinds of environmental issues?

I think yes, price would still be an issue, because these are not individuals they are business'. They exist to make a profit and the bidding on these jobs can be very cut-throat.

Good point. It's sad to me that the only reason some people care about environmental protection and conservation is to make money. I would like to think that if more people cared about these issues that they would be inspired to do these kinds of things without caring about how much they were going to make off it. Rather, I'd hope that some people would be willing to do it for the good of the environment.

Then again, I don't know much about this issue. Maybe as these products loose their newness and more information about them is available the price will go down...but that's a big maybe.

Since much of erosion control is done requirement to another project, typical construction major public facilities maintenance, the general contrtactors and developers are being required to install EC when they normally would have zero expense sew out towards ec without the regulatory requirements. So from their perspective, it is a wasteful expense eating into their project budget and raising facilities cost, e.g. houses, roads, etc.. This may be a better perspective that it is an additional expenditure on top of one that is already unwanted. It would be much like trying to tell people we are increasing their income taxes to green up the government. It is unlikely that many people would be favorable to that at almost any rate. The real way such things will be incorporated into practices, is the acceptance and preference by the regulatory agencies and governing bodies responsible for enforcement. If it cost nearly as much to demonstrate acceptability of the cheaper alternative as the cost difference between the cheaper and more environmentally friendly alternative, then they might choose the latter just for the marketing/public relations benefits.