{"id":1167,"date":"2024-01-18T18:11:55","date_gmt":"2024-01-18T18:11:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usglassmag.com\/insights\/?p=1167"},"modified":"2024-01-18T18:11:55","modified_gmt":"2024-01-18T18:11:55","slug":"long-service-life-or-recycling-which-is-the-most-sustainable-strategy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usglassmag.com\/insights\/2024\/01\/long-service-life-or-recycling-which-is-the-most-sustainable-strategy\/","title":{"rendered":"Long Service Life or Recycling: Which is the Most Sustainable Strategy?"},"content":{"rendered":"

I have had several discussions recently about which is more important \u2013 making fa\u00e7ade components last longer or creating systems where components can be repeatedly recovered, recycled and renewed. Some assert that fa\u00e7ade component lifetime is not that important if this end-of-life recycling and renewal can occur. While this part of the circular economy appears to be an attractive sustainability strategy, it may lull us into a false sense of sustainability.<\/p>\n

I have always felt that prioritizing durability and longevity ahead of design for recyclability was the best choice \u2013 if there was one to be made \u2013 but I could not effectively articulate a clear rationale. That was until I read a paper<\/a> by a non-profit Danish Design Center (DDC) team and a follow-up commentary by Lloyd Alter<\/a>. The articles address the criticisms of the circular economy, debunk some myths and add a fourth requirement to the definition of circular economy. They also underscore the primacy of product service life. Keeping materials in service is the highest value in the circular economy.<\/p>\n

\"\"