Let’s talk about something that seems to always be lurking in the background but is often misunderstood–chemical underpinning. Imagine the chemical underpinning as a silent, secret backbone supporting massive structures. But is it safe Mother Earth? more bonuses?

Imagine this: you’ve got an older building that’s slowly sinking. What do you? Right? These people inject chemicals in the ground and voilà, the structure stabilises. Although the process seems like magic it has some side effects. The chemicals that are used, like epoxy and resins, can have some serious side effects.

Ever heard about nature taking revenge on us? Some of these chemicals are able to seep down into the groundwater. This contaminated water can now be found many miles away. Like throwing a pebble into the pond and seeing how it spreads. It can be a daunting experience to watch the domino effect. Groundwater contamination can be dangerous.

What are the alternatives? You might think that using physical materials, like concrete or metals, is a better option. Not quite. Each of these options has its own set of carbon footprint problems. Like trying to fix the leaky faucet by using a damp sponge, you are replacing one problem with a new one.

Sometimes, I question if we are in a perpetual balancing act. You know, walking a fine line over a pit with spikes. Maximize or minimize. It’s a tightrope walker’s dilemma even with chemical backing. Some experts vouchsafe the use of eco-friendly plastics. Other experts raise an eyebrow at the long-term implications of such solutions. And who could blame them for that? The stakes in this game are very high.

I have a suggestion: Why not reduce the need to underpin from the very beginning? The use of sustainable construction techniques, better building planning and less hurried building are important steps. An ounce or prevention is worth more than a penny of cure, as the old proverb goes. We should listen to the old adages.