Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Jim L. Bowyer is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Jim L. Bowyer.


Forest Products Journal | 2017

CORRIM: The 20th Anniversary That Was More Than 40 Years in the Making*

Jim L. Bowyer; Bruce Lippke

Abstract In commemorating almost anything, it can be easy to forget what came before the event celebrated. In the case of the Committee on Renewable Resources for Industrial Materials (CORRIM) or, ...


Forest Products Journal | 2015

Environmental Product Declarations: Market Adaptation to the New Reality

Jim L. Bowyer

Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) are standardized reports of environmental impacts linked to a product or service. In ISO terminology an EPD is a Type III environmental label. EPDs and their applicability to the wood products industry have been extensively discussed in the Forest Products Journal and elsewhere in recent years. The US forest products industry in 2013 published industry-wide Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) for key softwood products, making it the first basic materials industry in the nation to issue transparent, third-party verified environmental labeling of products. Now, all building materials manufacturers are facing pressure to develop EPDs. Some are dragging their feet, choosing to focus on perceived weaknesses in wood products industry environmental performance rather than forthrightly developing their own reports. In addition, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), that forms the foundation for EPDs, is under attack from some quarters, primarily because it does not include assessment of landscape impacts. EPDs, as a result, do not report landscape impacts. The August 2015 issue of Environmental Building News (EBN) was largely dedicated to examination of EPDs, with introduction to the topic summarized in a lead-off article ‘‘EPDs Are the Future of the Building Industry, Whether You Like it or Not.’’ 3 This article and the rest of the issue is well worth reading as it reports on recent developments, highlights several issues with respect to implementation, and reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose and application of EPDs. Those in or associated with the wood products industry need to understand the issues related to EPDs and their utility in order to address questions and concerns that may be on the minds of customers. Misunderstood in some quarters is the role of LCA-based information in environmental reporting. An LCA yields information about environmental impacts linked to a particular product (for example softwood lumber) produced in a particular region in which practices are similar and inputs to energy production are common. Assessment encompasses product production, use, and disposal (or a subset of product life). LCA impact measures are developed from data obtained through measurement of inputs and outputs associated with a product or process, with the best available science then applied in determining the environmental significance of resource flows and emissions. Data collected are more or less precisely measurable and gathered and analyzed following a set of international protocols, resulting in analyses that can be reproduced and verified. An assessment may be industry wide (i.e., industry averages based on study of a number of individual manufacturers) or specific to a particular company or group of companies. The measurable, reproducible aspects of LCA are key to its usefulness in environmental reporting, as it ensures that assessment is systematic, science-based, and free of unsubstantiated claims. For this reason, aspects of evaluation that are heavily value laden, or impact measures that are likely to differ significantly from site to site even within a given region, such as on mining or harvesting sites, are not evaluated or included in an LCA. Certification provides third-party, producer and site-specific oversight of environmental and social impacts linked to basic raw materials procurement. As it is not uncommon for manufacturers to have dozens or even hundreds of widely scattered suppliers of raw material, including foreign suppliers, impacts can vary considerably and are highly site specific. And, assessment is often subjective. Used together, LCA and LCA-based EPDs, and product certification, provide extensive information about the impacts linked to a specific shipment of a specific product. As explained by Trusty (2012), LCA is but one of a number of tools available for evaluation of environmental impacts, noting that just as you should not grab a screwdriver when you want to drive a nail, or reach for a hammer in order to tighten the nut on a bolt, you should go to the toolkit and pick the right tool for the job at hand. He explains that ‘‘the same logic applies to proper use of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). The reality is that LCA is one essential tool, in fact one of the oldest, in a toolkit stocked with complementary tools that aid in evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of a product system throughout its life cycle.’’ The same analogy applies to LCA-based EPDs. Several articles within the recent EBN issue provide classic examples of misunderstanding of the role of LCA and EPDs in environmental assessment. One article, authored by Jason Grant, complains that EPDs ignore the worst impacts of wood and vinyl and then lists for wood a number of potential impacts that are addressed in forest certification programs. In point of fact, landscape impacts, for reasons discussed previously, will also not be found in EPDs for steel, plastics, cement, or any other basic material. Another author, Brent Ehrlich, also criticized EPDs for a lack of information regarding land-use


Archive | 2004

CORRIM: Life-Cycle Environmental Performance of Renewable Building Materials

Bruce Lippke; James B. Wilson; John Perez-Garcia; Jim L. Bowyer; Jamie Meil


Forest Products Journal | 2001

Agricultural residues: An exciting bio-based raw material for the global panels industry

Jim L. Bowyer; David Briggs; Leonard Johnson; Bo Kasal; Bruce Lippke; Jamie Meil; Mike Milota; Wayne Trusty; Cynthia D. West; James B. Wilson; Paul Winistorter


Forest Products Journal | 1998

Thermal performance and embodied energy of cold climate wall systems

Patrick Pierquet; Jim L. Bowyer; Patrick H. Huelman


Forest Products Journal | 2008

The GREEN movement and the forest products industry.

Jim L. Bowyer


Forest Products Journal | 2007

Green building programs

Jim L. Bowyer


Forest Products Journal | 2010

68TH UNECE TIMBER COMMITTEE MEETING

Jim L. Bowyer


Archive | 2007

Environmental Life‐Cycle Analysis of Alternative Building Materials

Bruce Lippke; Jim L. Bowyer


Forest Products Journal | 2005

University of Minnesota - Redefining undergraduate education for the 21st century

Jim L. Bowyer; Shri Ramaswamy

Collaboration


Dive into the Jim L. Bowyer's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Bruce Lippke

University of Washington

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge