Awarding the Nobel Prize to Al Gore and the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has once again highlighted the global crisis we now face. While the prize raises awareness, it falls short of informing people about the big picture issue of sustainability. So, the question I’m asking today is: what is the relationship between Global Warming and sustainability, and why is it important to understand?
The topic for this entry surfaced when I heard Lou Dobbs questioning the choice of Al Gore’s Global Warming campaign as worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize. Dobbs commented that he believed competition for resources will constitute a greater source of conflict than Global Warming. The truth is both are symptoms of unsustainable practices – the root cause of many of humanity’s woes. I believe it’s important to understand because our response will be framed by our understanding of the problem. So, if our goal is only to combat Global Warming, we will still fail the challenge and continue to face consequences of the sort Lou Dobbs refers.
Obviously we urgently need to elevate the public dialogue to include sustainability, but we face an inherent conflict in the argument because it involves changing how people see the world and live in it. I think it’s natural for people to fear change, especially the economics, because what is unknown is perceived as a threat to their personal ability to survive. This is why informing people about the issues, as well as articulating and demonstrating our response to the challenge, is so important – to dispel fear and engage people to change their behavior for all our benefit.
Does Gore’s new celebrity status or the popularity of his film diminish the validity of his argument? This notion becomes particularly fierce during presidential elections. However, if we as a democratically organized society believe what we preach, then their opinion is as valid as anyone else’s. Democracy includes everyone, but is most effective when people are informed about the issues. To dismiss anyone’s opinion is to denigrate democracy itself and I would challenge whether or not those espousing such opinions are interested in maintaining our democratic system. Maybe they like the name “democracy”, but names are meaningless – it’s our actions that count. In fact, it’s arguably a moral obligation of celebrities to utilize their fame to focus public attention in our “megaphone-based” version of democracy. And, while it may be inefficient, it’s what we got.
I believe the Nobel Prize award to Gore is important for several reasons. It serves as advertising for an important issue and significantly contributes to raising global awareness to create the critical mass needed for change. Also, the fact that the Nobel committee is relating global warming with peace is significant in educating the public about the complexity of the connections involved, and hints at the integrated nature of truly sustainable solutions. So, as someone with no megaphone, I’d like to thank the Nobel committee for using theirs to advance the cause.
Showing posts with label design. Show all posts
Showing posts with label design. Show all posts
Monday, October 22, 2007
Monday, September 24, 2007
Policy Makers Gamble with Our Common Future
While our collective awareness of how human activity has affected our planet continues to grow, there is considerable debate as how to proceed. Some call for drastic measures while many want more information. Yes, there is a lot of room for disagreement, but I believe we can all agree that there is still a great deal we don’t understand about our planet and its systems. In fact, I don’t believe we will possess enough knowledge to make an absolutely informed decision for several hundred years to come. However, if we heed the advice offered by the Hippocratic Oath to “do no harm”, despite our “analysis paralysis” this core principal that forms the basis of our insurance industry insists on the implementation of sustainable policies in order to fulfill this moral code.
Philosophically and technologically we possess the capabilities to realize a sustainable common future, but in the real world actions speak louder than words. By that I mean we simply need to look at actual behavior to determine intention. Is our government looking out for the least of us? From my vantage point it looks like big business has benefited the most from the current American political leadership. The uninsured and underinsured are growing, the middle class is shrinking, the environment continues to degrade and corporate profits are growing – all in response to government policies. In my book, sincere contrition for one’s past errors is best demonstrated through the immediate change in one’s behavior.
Another tactic that is not uncommon in our political culture is to punt the ball down the road and let the next guy worry about it. Similar to President Bush’s strategy toward Iraq, this tactic strives to let the next party in power take the political fallout for making the hard decisions. However, unlike most of us, you have the power to affect systemic changes now. Time is not on our side and such political tactics only contribute to the enormity of the problems we face while we wait for you to leave your offices. Remember, in a court of law ignorance is not a defense so you will be judged for you failure to take action.
One of the arguments politicians use to defend their actions is that CO2 is a global issue and requires everyone to act in order to be effective. Wrong! Leaders act first! You can’t control others, you can only control yourself. If our actions demonstrate the type of nation we are, what does our behavior say about us? Maybe the US government prefers dividing up the costs to address global warming by paying our percentage of total historical gas contributions? It sounds very fair to me, and also very expensive. Now is our chance to avoid the high cost of “fair” by investing into transforming our society and economy now! Through their inaction policy makers are leaving us morally vulnerable to taking responsibility for creating this environmental mess.
Then there’s the chicken and the egg argument for inaction that there is “no public support.” Unless I’m mistaken, I believe that one of the essential duties of a government is to look at the “big picture” issues as well as future threats and address them by educating the public and developing solutions. While our government attempted to deal with the inherent unsustainability of our energy supply by invading Iraq, this is at best a stop gap measure with no long-term benefit to the people of the United States, and has turned out not to even have a short-term benefit except to corporate interests.
Congressmen, Senators, Presidents, Parliamentarians, Prime Ministers, Kings and Queens, start doing your job -- no one said it was going to be easy.
On The Web
Grist
Environmental Issues served with a twist!
www.grist.org
World Changing
Tools, Models and Ideas for Building a Bright, Green Future
www.worldchanging.com
Philosophically and technologically we possess the capabilities to realize a sustainable common future, but in the real world actions speak louder than words. By that I mean we simply need to look at actual behavior to determine intention. Is our government looking out for the least of us? From my vantage point it looks like big business has benefited the most from the current American political leadership. The uninsured and underinsured are growing, the middle class is shrinking, the environment continues to degrade and corporate profits are growing – all in response to government policies. In my book, sincere contrition for one’s past errors is best demonstrated through the immediate change in one’s behavior.
Another tactic that is not uncommon in our political culture is to punt the ball down the road and let the next guy worry about it. Similar to President Bush’s strategy toward Iraq, this tactic strives to let the next party in power take the political fallout for making the hard decisions. However, unlike most of us, you have the power to affect systemic changes now. Time is not on our side and such political tactics only contribute to the enormity of the problems we face while we wait for you to leave your offices. Remember, in a court of law ignorance is not a defense so you will be judged for you failure to take action.
One of the arguments politicians use to defend their actions is that CO2 is a global issue and requires everyone to act in order to be effective. Wrong! Leaders act first! You can’t control others, you can only control yourself. If our actions demonstrate the type of nation we are, what does our behavior say about us? Maybe the US government prefers dividing up the costs to address global warming by paying our percentage of total historical gas contributions? It sounds very fair to me, and also very expensive. Now is our chance to avoid the high cost of “fair” by investing into transforming our society and economy now! Through their inaction policy makers are leaving us morally vulnerable to taking responsibility for creating this environmental mess.
Then there’s the chicken and the egg argument for inaction that there is “no public support.” Unless I’m mistaken, I believe that one of the essential duties of a government is to look at the “big picture” issues as well as future threats and address them by educating the public and developing solutions. While our government attempted to deal with the inherent unsustainability of our energy supply by invading Iraq, this is at best a stop gap measure with no long-term benefit to the people of the United States, and has turned out not to even have a short-term benefit except to corporate interests.
Congressmen, Senators, Presidents, Parliamentarians, Prime Ministers, Kings and Queens, start doing your job -- no one said it was going to be easy.
On The Web
Grist
Environmental Issues served with a twist!
www.grist.org
World Changing
Tools, Models and Ideas for Building a Bright, Green Future
www.worldchanging.com
Monday, August 6, 2007
If We're Serious About Sustainability...
It’s kind of a silly title because if we were serious about sustainability, we would already be on our way to building a sustainable future. While some scientists and leaders have suggested that we may have 10 years (now 9 years) to make a course correction before it becomes unchangeable, since it’s not even a conversation piece yet, it seems we have a long way yet to go which brings me to the title. If we want to coax the rest of society into a sustainable direction, we have to acknowledge the obstacles we face.
For example, we would normally look toward government to identify the sustainability need and lead us toward it, but today’s governmental system is more managerial in nature and doesn’t want to “rock the boat.” Today we are offered a consumer based solution to a greener future, but a nine year timetable does not offer the immediate and drastic changes that may be required. The American Congress and Presidency are more concerned with how to reconcile the current revenue streams and capacities to maintain our economy rather than deal with some vague threat.
However, in last week’s entry I noted that a sustainable economy will be a subset of our current economy as it will be far more efficient with fewer resources. This is an interesting point because it suggests that such a sustainable system could also operate in parallel with what we already have. What is the significance of this? Well, it offers us a seamless transition to a sustainable economy without having to “dismantle” what we already have – one of the great fears of our government managers.
By “planting and growing" a system from the start, it offers several advantages. It offers a sustainable counter-balance to our consumer society providing immediate reductions in green house gases. A parallel system is the most efficient way because it encourages as many people to voluntarily migrate to the sustainable economy as possible. The pioneers of this sustainable system will also become examples to those living outside the system to encourage a new way of living. The beauty of it is that if it is good, it will grow and if it’s a bad idea, it will wither.
I truly believe that for any civilization, the road to a bright and hopeful future has only one path and that is through a sustainable way of life. So, if we’re going to get where we need to go, we need to admit what the obstacles are in order to develop solutions. The American government, for one, faces shortfalls in revenues for Social Security, Medicare, education and infrastructure repair and replacement. With some creative thinking, these liabilities can be managed and mitigated if integrated with a plan to develop sustainable systems.
On The Web
US Comptroller General Issues Warning
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/80fa0a2c-49ef-11dc-9ffe-0000779fd2ac.html
For example, we would normally look toward government to identify the sustainability need and lead us toward it, but today’s governmental system is more managerial in nature and doesn’t want to “rock the boat.” Today we are offered a consumer based solution to a greener future, but a nine year timetable does not offer the immediate and drastic changes that may be required. The American Congress and Presidency are more concerned with how to reconcile the current revenue streams and capacities to maintain our economy rather than deal with some vague threat.
However, in last week’s entry I noted that a sustainable economy will be a subset of our current economy as it will be far more efficient with fewer resources. This is an interesting point because it suggests that such a sustainable system could also operate in parallel with what we already have. What is the significance of this? Well, it offers us a seamless transition to a sustainable economy without having to “dismantle” what we already have – one of the great fears of our government managers.
By “planting and growing" a system from the start, it offers several advantages. It offers a sustainable counter-balance to our consumer society providing immediate reductions in green house gases. A parallel system is the most efficient way because it encourages as many people to voluntarily migrate to the sustainable economy as possible. The pioneers of this sustainable system will also become examples to those living outside the system to encourage a new way of living. The beauty of it is that if it is good, it will grow and if it’s a bad idea, it will wither.
I truly believe that for any civilization, the road to a bright and hopeful future has only one path and that is through a sustainable way of life. So, if we’re going to get where we need to go, we need to admit what the obstacles are in order to develop solutions. The American government, for one, faces shortfalls in revenues for Social Security, Medicare, education and infrastructure repair and replacement. With some creative thinking, these liabilities can be managed and mitigated if integrated with a plan to develop sustainable systems.
On The Web
US Comptroller General Issues Warning
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/80fa0a2c-49ef-11dc-9ffe-0000779fd2ac.html
Monday, July 23, 2007
Our Common Future
In addition to the “sustainability puzzle” I’ve made frequent reference to “our common future” throughout this Blog. What do I mean by this phrase, why is our future common and why is it important? Well, to put it as simply as possible, while we emphasize our differences in color, race, sex, religion and language, we have more in common than we have differences. While we achieve many things in our individual lives, our single greatest legacy is what we leave our children. And, a reasonable question to ask is: have we contributed more to their problems (bad) or to their solutions (good)? It’s important to recognize our common future because I believe we have arrived at a time of choice with the power to choose between creating a world of our dreams or one made of our most dreaded fears.
Like rivaling high school football teams from the same town, its human nature to rally around and support those you have an immediate connection with. These self created divisions usually disappear when the spotlight is focused on larger community interests. Likewise, technology has made our world smaller and increased our understanding of how interconnected we are with our environment. “We’re in this boat together” and “No man is an island” are all clichés that apply to the realities of life upon this one earth. And, the world today is a complete international economic system where many benefit from the misfortune of others. In the past it was much easier to ignore the harsh realities that many in our family of humanity face every day. But, today with camera phones and the internet, to further deny the problems and not commit to actively resolve them pushes the meaning of irresponsible to new heights.
If you argue that the “science isn’t in” then we do both agree that no one wants to harm the environment we inhabit. But, that argument equally argues that the science permitting us to continue our indiscriminant abuse of our environment is also not in because they are one and the same science. The only rational option is to stop the presses as much as we can and proceed in ways we know contribute to our environment’s health. The key word is rational. How many adults do you know receive a bill in the mail and hide it unopened? This child-like behavior doesn’t make the problem go away and it usually gets worse with time.
Whether we recognize it or not, the stakes have gotten higher and will continue with increasing population and environmental stress. While its been said that with great power comes great responsibility, power is not just of the military kind, there is also economic power and its power to affect our environment. Serious leadership is needed to right this ship before we run ashore. Presently our policies are dictated to a large degree by our past history where religion, language and geographies have been paramount. Just as these differences can contribute to a diversity of thought that can enrich and strengthen our creative responses, they can also continue to divide us into squabbling groups of children who don’t offer the respect they expect from others.
So, what are we trying to create? If it is simply to consume resources and make stuff, then we’re making headway. But, if our pursuit is happiness, then we’re spinning our wheels. If happiness results from liking yourself and from healthy relationships with others, we have not created systems conducive toward that end. Ultimately our own safety rests in the security of our fellow man and so a huge incentive to deal with the “big issue” of sustainability is our own self-interest. But more importantly, we can do better and should do better. Remember: who we are now (both individually and as a society) is the sum of our choices. To change who we are, we must also change our choices -- starting now. Who knows what will happen -- this story has yet to fully play itself out.
Like rivaling high school football teams from the same town, its human nature to rally around and support those you have an immediate connection with. These self created divisions usually disappear when the spotlight is focused on larger community interests. Likewise, technology has made our world smaller and increased our understanding of how interconnected we are with our environment. “We’re in this boat together” and “No man is an island” are all clichés that apply to the realities of life upon this one earth. And, the world today is a complete international economic system where many benefit from the misfortune of others. In the past it was much easier to ignore the harsh realities that many in our family of humanity face every day. But, today with camera phones and the internet, to further deny the problems and not commit to actively resolve them pushes the meaning of irresponsible to new heights.
If you argue that the “science isn’t in” then we do both agree that no one wants to harm the environment we inhabit. But, that argument equally argues that the science permitting us to continue our indiscriminant abuse of our environment is also not in because they are one and the same science. The only rational option is to stop the presses as much as we can and proceed in ways we know contribute to our environment’s health. The key word is rational. How many adults do you know receive a bill in the mail and hide it unopened? This child-like behavior doesn’t make the problem go away and it usually gets worse with time.
Whether we recognize it or not, the stakes have gotten higher and will continue with increasing population and environmental stress. While its been said that with great power comes great responsibility, power is not just of the military kind, there is also economic power and its power to affect our environment. Serious leadership is needed to right this ship before we run ashore. Presently our policies are dictated to a large degree by our past history where religion, language and geographies have been paramount. Just as these differences can contribute to a diversity of thought that can enrich and strengthen our creative responses, they can also continue to divide us into squabbling groups of children who don’t offer the respect they expect from others.
So, what are we trying to create? If it is simply to consume resources and make stuff, then we’re making headway. But, if our pursuit is happiness, then we’re spinning our wheels. If happiness results from liking yourself and from healthy relationships with others, we have not created systems conducive toward that end. Ultimately our own safety rests in the security of our fellow man and so a huge incentive to deal with the “big issue” of sustainability is our own self-interest. But more importantly, we can do better and should do better. Remember: who we are now (both individually and as a society) is the sum of our choices. To change who we are, we must also change our choices -- starting now. Who knows what will happen -- this story has yet to fully play itself out.
Monday, May 21, 2007
The Sustainability Puzzle: The Cornerstone is the Home
In trying to solve problems, sometimes I find it useful to picture in my head the end result so that I can more clearly define the goals and objectives as well as the practical steps needed to achieve them. In considering the sustainability puzzle I ask myself what are the inevitable components that will make up a sustainable world? Ideally it will be a world without poverty and this implies that no one will lack food, clothing and shelter. Even though its is not distributed equitably, today the world produces enough food and clothing for everyone, so I want to focus on the issue of shelter.
The concept of the sustainability puzzle is simple, but complicated by the number of people involved. Simply put, the challenge is for the Earth’s population to utilize its resources in a way that does not deprive the many future generations of their fair share. In the context of housing, the challenge is framed around resources including materials, construction labor and energy requirements over the lifetime of the house. Now, the nature of this challenge is not a technical one, it is a design challenge of organizing the pieces in a replicable way – an easier challenge than going to Mars and arguably more urgent.
The architectural challenge is to design a home that achieves at least the following objectives:
LEED Platinum Efficiency: This is the highest efficiency rating thus far established by the US Green Building Council and is primarily conquered in the design phase. While terms such as LEED are known by “green conscious” builders in the United States, the objectives and methodology should be integrated into the design for those who do not even know the term. Let’s just say that this is a minimal efficiency standard that should be achieved in a sustainable design.
Owner Built: Benjamin Franklin offered us advice that endures time. “A penny saved is a penny earned.” And so too building one’s own house makes the home as a foundation of sustainability more affordable and therefore in the reach of more people. To achieve this goal the design implication is that the house must be easy to assemble and here lies an opportunity for innovation. Just as IKEA simplified the furniture assembly process through a few innovative gadgets, so too should a house be designed so that it becomes more of an assembly process rather than a construction process. The building material is also an important factor. I’m a big fan of strawbale construction and one reason is that as a material it aesthetically forgiving and the large building blocks make the building process more intuitive.
Modular Design: Part and parcel to the principal of designing a house that can be owner built is also one that can be built in pieces and contains components that can be added. This makes the construction process more affordable as it can be accomplished on a “pay as you go” basis. For example, the house I plan to build is purposely designed in a “U” shape so that one half can be built first to provide the essential core of the home, a bedroom, bathroom and kitchen, and more living area can be added at a later date as money permits.
Sustainable Materials: The LEED rating system takes the type of material into account, but on a global scale, we need to get away from many of the energy intense materials that we currently are accustomed to. While strawbale may not be the panacea for all locations, it is a sustainable material in that it is an agricultural byproduct that can be supplied locally and is therefore very affordable. Furthermore, it has a high insular value that reduces energy inputs. While cob construction is an alternative, the shear weight of the material would seem to become a barrier to many.
Open Source Design Concept: The designs should be open and available to everyone for free if we truly want everyone to reduce energy use and achieve a minimal standard of living. While this flies against the current practice of architects creating unique designs individualized for the homebuilder, this is a cost that can’t be afforded by most.
House in a Box: If there are a few core designs, component kits could be sold to further lower costs and make the building process that much easier. These vital components include pipes, floor radiant heating tubing, nails, water barrier paper, electrical wires, switches and plugs, solar panels, faucets and even toilets and sinks. But don’t be deceived by the word “kit”, in all likelihood these would be delivered to the home assembly site on a pallet!
A sustainable design will definitely require a great deal of “out of the box” thinking to achieve these goals and possibly more. A truly integrated design will also take into account the surrounding landscape and could include an edible garden to further empower the homeowners and lessen the overall burden on transported goods. While there are definitely other pieces that make up the sustainability puzzle, I believe the long-term sustainability begins with a well-designed and practical house. I hope that architects will take on this challenge that could truly form the basis of our sustainable future.
The concept of the sustainability puzzle is simple, but complicated by the number of people involved. Simply put, the challenge is for the Earth’s population to utilize its resources in a way that does not deprive the many future generations of their fair share. In the context of housing, the challenge is framed around resources including materials, construction labor and energy requirements over the lifetime of the house. Now, the nature of this challenge is not a technical one, it is a design challenge of organizing the pieces in a replicable way – an easier challenge than going to Mars and arguably more urgent.
The architectural challenge is to design a home that achieves at least the following objectives:
LEED Platinum Efficiency: This is the highest efficiency rating thus far established by the US Green Building Council and is primarily conquered in the design phase. While terms such as LEED are known by “green conscious” builders in the United States, the objectives and methodology should be integrated into the design for those who do not even know the term. Let’s just say that this is a minimal efficiency standard that should be achieved in a sustainable design.
Owner Built: Benjamin Franklin offered us advice that endures time. “A penny saved is a penny earned.” And so too building one’s own house makes the home as a foundation of sustainability more affordable and therefore in the reach of more people. To achieve this goal the design implication is that the house must be easy to assemble and here lies an opportunity for innovation. Just as IKEA simplified the furniture assembly process through a few innovative gadgets, so too should a house be designed so that it becomes more of an assembly process rather than a construction process. The building material is also an important factor. I’m a big fan of strawbale construction and one reason is that as a material it aesthetically forgiving and the large building blocks make the building process more intuitive.
Modular Design: Part and parcel to the principal of designing a house that can be owner built is also one that can be built in pieces and contains components that can be added. This makes the construction process more affordable as it can be accomplished on a “pay as you go” basis. For example, the house I plan to build is purposely designed in a “U” shape so that one half can be built first to provide the essential core of the home, a bedroom, bathroom and kitchen, and more living area can be added at a later date as money permits.
Sustainable Materials: The LEED rating system takes the type of material into account, but on a global scale, we need to get away from many of the energy intense materials that we currently are accustomed to. While strawbale may not be the panacea for all locations, it is a sustainable material in that it is an agricultural byproduct that can be supplied locally and is therefore very affordable. Furthermore, it has a high insular value that reduces energy inputs. While cob construction is an alternative, the shear weight of the material would seem to become a barrier to many.
Open Source Design Concept: The designs should be open and available to everyone for free if we truly want everyone to reduce energy use and achieve a minimal standard of living. While this flies against the current practice of architects creating unique designs individualized for the homebuilder, this is a cost that can’t be afforded by most.
House in a Box: If there are a few core designs, component kits could be sold to further lower costs and make the building process that much easier. These vital components include pipes, floor radiant heating tubing, nails, water barrier paper, electrical wires, switches and plugs, solar panels, faucets and even toilets and sinks. But don’t be deceived by the word “kit”, in all likelihood these would be delivered to the home assembly site on a pallet!
A sustainable design will definitely require a great deal of “out of the box” thinking to achieve these goals and possibly more. A truly integrated design will also take into account the surrounding landscape and could include an edible garden to further empower the homeowners and lessen the overall burden on transported goods. While there are definitely other pieces that make up the sustainability puzzle, I believe the long-term sustainability begins with a well-designed and practical house. I hope that architects will take on this challenge that could truly form the basis of our sustainable future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
