demand for high value wood in niche markets, has provided ready outlets for recovered wood (Seldman & Jackson, 2000). As discussed, however, in Chapter IIs section on engineered wood, even the use of wood waste in engineered wood products and wood-plastic decking lumber is an ambiguous development. Combining wood waste with polymers or toxic glues may only be delaying a disposal problem one brief life-cycle. Keeping wood separate, and reducing its use and encouraging its reuse may be a better way to cycle it. More attention needs to be given to how materials can be reused, recycled or even upcycled. What is called recycling today is more often than not downcycling, the use of a material in a more degraded state that wont likely allow further recycling. One safe strategic priority is a greater emphasis on salvageand therefore reuse. Webster (2002) points out that currently the salvage rate of wood members is roughly proportional to the member size. Timbers (6x and bigger) are frequently salvaged, while dimension lumber (4x and smaller) is rarely salvaged. This suggests designers need to be employing timber frame or post-and-beam construction more, and we need to be finding ways to reuse smaller framing members. Building codes must be revised and appropriate forms of grading must be developed to encourage wood reuse, particularly structural wood. Another strategic priority is the substitution of wood by other natural materialscob construction, rammed earth, strawbales, etc.that are both plentiful and can be easily recycled. Concrete: As I discussed in Chapter II, concrete has its place, but only if (1) its inappropriate use can be reduced, (2) its Portland cement content reduced, and (3) it can be recycled and reused much better than it currently is. Today much concrete demolition