zlacker

>>hrl+(OP)
This should be an economics piece, not an environmental piece. The author states that "one of iron’s unalterable properties is that it rusts" yet further on acknowledges the existence of stainless steel.

There's nothing wrong with reinforced concrete, but the incentives to produce long lasting buildings are not there. The cheapest bidder will generally win and their building will last the "design life" of the building, but often not much more. The simplest way to change this is to extend the design life, which would result in stainless steels or another more expensive material being used in this application.

>>brutus+J5
Is it a good thing for society to directly incentivize the construction of longer lasting buildings?

>>miniki+Q5
IMO yes; if the materials cost a lot of time/carbon/resources to produce, then we should make them last!

>>sesuxi+K7
I agree. Its like one of the few things we can give future generations. 'sorry about the debt, but heres some buildings'

>>autoka+q8
You're implicitly assuming they'll want those buildings, and I'm not sure they will. Perhaps those buildings will be unsuitable for their activities, or the buildings will be found unsafe for some unforeseen reason. If either of these possibilities occur, the additional time, energy, and pollution you incurred to make the buildings rust-resistant are waste.