Green Stats: 112,000
by Collin Dunn, Corvallis, OR, USA 
on 11.20.07
112,000 -- the amount, in tons, of construction waste burned buried in US landfills every year.
50 -- the percent of construction waste that is salvageable and reusable.
45 -- the percent of construction waste that is recyclable.
33 -- the number of mature trees used to construct a new 2,000 square foot house. Sort of gives new meaning to "green building," eh?
::Mallet Consulting via ::Green Living Online
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
> construction waste burned
buried, not burned
**Ed. note**
Oops! Thanks for the eagle eye; noted and fixed.
33 trees in each new house.
That's sequestered carbon.... ;o)
(Obviously we should clean our waste stream. Some communities are.)
112,000 tons (?) Really, is that all?
16 trees per 1,000 sf is a very nice rule-of thumb image to keep in mind and use.
Does this mean that 5% of construction waste is not recyclable or reusable in any fashion, and must be landfilled?
Which is it - burned or buried? The correction does not appear to have been made correctly.
The originator of the info is in Georgia, while some of the figures used may be metric, adding further uncertainty.
I know you're trying to be helpful. But these stats seem very squishy. More precision would be quite helpful. Also these data points are not referenced to any verifiable source, calling into question their veracity.
Tree Hugger should be providing a value-added service. Merely being an aggregator of other postings, really means that you are just an amplifier of rumors. I've noticed that you tend to recut and pass along large chunks of articles and press releases verbatim, with little regard as to the quality or underlying motivation of the original source. The unfortunately leads to a diminished level of trust in other postings and information you provide, and calls into question the trustworthiness and sincerity of this site in general.
Fewer, less sloppy and more accurate posts would be a great improvement.
If it is a brink house, many times the extra are buried, especially on custom houses where the bricks saved have little chance of being used again. It's just cheaper.
So if it takes 33 trees to build the average house, (I think that is about 2200 SF in North America) then Jon's number of 16 per 1000 SF seems pretty accurate. I have been told that by employing Optimal Framing Techniques or OVE Optimal Value Engineering, like 24" stud and floor joist spacing and minimized use of beams for headers, that one can save 12 trees per house. If that were applied to the average house of 2200 SF we would be at about 21 trees per house with about a 36% savings. Can Treehugger substantiate this analysis?
I'd question the 112,000 tonnes figure too. Hardly seems enough. Based on experience the very minimum a site would generate would be in excess of 10tonnes. (easily more), does this mean that there are only 11,200 construction projects generating waste in the US.
i agree with Bob Wallace, alot of the articles posted here don't really reference anything... less quantity and more quality.
Bob & tdub;
I agree that TH is on the edge of doing more harm than good for the environment - but masses will read it regardless. You can help tip the scales by debunking when you hit something in your areas of expertise.
Remember, the "reporters generally have no expertise in any way on the areas they are posting about. They are relying on these comments to mitigate the damage they will inevitably do.
On the topic of North American Construction: does anyone know how much of the industry relies on agricultural forestry and how much is simply reducing wilderness? Remember - as we approach 100% cropped forestry, "waste" is simply a means to increase forest land. Sequestering carbon isn't the only benefit of increasing woodlands!
It's a complex topic. I'd love to see someone take it on.