biking facts I found from a shop promoting a 'bike to work day':
- New bicycle commuters can expect to lose 13 pounds their first year of bicycle commuting. [Bicycling Magazine]
- Trimming one vehicle from your household saves you $340/month. [City of Seattle]
- # While in Japan 15% of commuters bicycle to work, in the Netherlands 50% of commuters bicycle and in China 77% commute by bike; only 1.6% of U.S. commuters bicycle to work. [Washington State Energy Office Extension Services]
So lets see, over the next year I can expect to lose 13 pounds and save $4080? Sign me up!
WK – I read an article from the New York Times about Boston planning to amend its building code to require that all large-scale private construction be “green.” Since you need to sign up for a membership to read the article, I have posted the info below to save everyone the trouble of creating a membership…
*****************
Boston Plans to Go ‘Green’ on Large Building Projects
By KATIE ZEZIMA
Published: December 20, 2006
BOSTON, Dec. 19 — Boston plans to amend its building code to require that all large-scale private construction be “green.”
Under the new regulations, all private construction of at least 50,000 square feet must meet the minimum criteria of the United States Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design standards for new projects.
While other governments have adopted the association’s standards for private construction, Boston is believed to be the first city to revise its building code to adhere to them, said Taryn Holowka, an association spokeswoman.
The Washington City Council passed a bill earlier this month requiring private developers to follow the standards, which Mayor Anthony A. Williams is expected to sign next week.
The City of Pasadena, Calif., has required much of its private construction to meet the standards since April. The State of New Mexico requires new buildings over 15,000 square feet to comply with the standards, while 18 states and 12 federal agencies use them for new public buildings.
The change in Boston’s building code means that each project must meet at least 26 of 69 criteria the Green Building Council established. Developers can choose from the 69 items, which include construction with recycled content, water-efficient landscaping systems and proximity to public transportation. The city is adding four other criteria, including one that would pertain to a project involving historic preservation.
“Boston is growing, and this amendment helps us grow our sustainable green buildings, which are good for public health and air quality,” said Mayor Thomas M. Menino, who started the initiative two years ago. “We’re doing what we should be doing, moving toward better environmental quality. We’re thinking about the future.”
The regulations, expected to be approved by the Boston Redevelopment Authority on Thursday, will take effect upon being publicly posted next week. The Zoning Commission is expected to approve the regulations Jan. 10.
James W. Hunt III, Mr. Menino’s top environmental aide, said in a public hearing Tuesday that a commission would review all new construction projects to ensure they met the standards, which would shift and change over time.
“Our commitment is to grow this city in a sustainable way that enhances the quality of life and helps save on the bottom line,” Mr. Hunt said.
While environmentally friendly construction helps save money in the long run by reducing electricity and energy use, it is typically about 2 to 5 percent more expensive up front. But Mr. Menino said he encountered little resistance from developers and architects, many of whom are embracing the new standards.
“The long-term costs of not doing this are catastrophic,” said Hubert Murray, president of the Boston Society of Architects. “We don’t really have a choice. Yes, it’s a greater first cost, but with that investment we hope to defer the far greater cost of neglect.”
rationalist - good one. i think those stats represent some of the primary issues that designers across the board should be focusing on and promoting w/ regards to sustainability. in my opinion walkability, biking, etc.. , quite possibly represents the most potent solution to much of our dependancy on oil - and other health related issues our society deals with (both physical and social). i think it's accurate to say that sustainability both environmentally and socially begins with walking - and we need to focus on designing cities that naturally make walking, biking, the best way to get around w/ a minimal need for longer trips.
on a slightly different tangent - but maybe not so much - i subscribe to a magazine called Orion that discusses various environmental and social justice related topics that are very pertinent to the design community. the Orion Society to many might represent a certain extreme in environmentalism, but i think that their consistent discussion on sustainable agriculture, and many other social/environmental issues brings us very close to the direction/focus most of us are talking about on this site when we're fully honest about what the terms "green" and "sustainability" really mean.
Even though I should do better, I'm still surprised its lower than I expected. Maybe its because I walk everywhere (work, school, groceries) and I live in a hole in the wall that I share with a mouse. Now back to the serious conversation.
I read an AIA article recently discussing the difference between sustainability and green architecture. I used to use those two somewhat interchangeably and now I probably won't. The only problem with sustainable design is that it requires much more holistic thinking that deals with design, construction, materials, & etc. at all stages. Because it requires so much thinking, there is not enough time, exposure to clients, and knowledge for casual application. Without some kind of extreme passion, it is very difficult to achieve and often requires infrastructural changes (that is probably outside of an architect's control).
Sustainability is definitely hard. Even just greening architecture can be hard. For instance, if you want to make a parking lot more sustainable, one of the first things that people tell you is to use more permeable materials. So you go, 'ok, that's easy enough', and use permeable concrete, or gravel, or something like that. Wait, what about oil leaks, pollution, etc? So you're getting water back into natural aquifers and reducing runoff, but what kind of water is it you're letting get back into the drinking supply? My office does a lot of work for schools (private K-12 mostly), and we basically have to toss the concept of natural ventilation out the window, no pun intended, right off the bat. Why? Because the teachers refuse to open the windows. WTF?!
These are just a couple of examples that my office particularly has struggled with, but they both show how green architecture can't be practiced in a vaccuum. It's hard, but total sustainability is the only way to go. People need to be educated about this stuff, or much of our work may turn out like hybrid cars: are they good, or bad? Or ok after all?
Wow, great minds must think alike. Haha, just joking of course, but I did think about mentioning that exact article as an example for my post above and was just about to post again until I read yours. Sustainable design does require a kind of thinking that goes beyond the architect's scope in "traditional" practice. When, sustainability seems so unachievable, I can see how most people won't even try techniques that would be helpful although not completely sustainable. Kind of an "all or nothing" approach. It requires very in-depth, holistic, and collaborative research between many fields for it to be truely relevant - maybe even research into "sustainable" and gradual implementation.
Yesterday me and my friend walked up to the casjier at that super-green bp gas station on Robertson and Olympic and my friend asked for a treat. The guy said "tree?" and she said "treat!" and he said "tree" and pointed to a baby tree free for the taking. Ha.
That is exactly what my bosses do to me.... they talk themselves out of good ideas with smaller details. For instance, the glazing is not made operable because the teachers won't open it, so why spend the money on something that won't actually be used? So the glazing isn't operable, but what if the teachers come around ten years from now, and realize that they should be opening a window instead of turning on the AC? Well, they can't, because they don't have operable glazing, because at the time of construction it was deemed superfluous.
But really, I would love it if there were some way to teach building users the ways to maximize efficiency in their current buildings, so that if/when they moved somewhere better they would be pushing for the good green stuff instead of fighting against it. I wonder whether there's a market for "Efficiency Consultants" that would provide this sort of service?
______
No commentary on solar powered bags? I'm really curious what you guys think of them.
This bag produces 6.3 Watts of power, can charge a cell phone, ipod, cameras, and even some laptops (needs an additional attachment). I'm really interested in these- they're expensive, but it could concievably keep ones power usage down a bit, and is super convenient if you're like me and always end up somewhere great with a dead camera battery. Are these things only of use in Phoenix, LA, Mexico City, etc? Or would they work in northern climates with more overcast days?
i wanted to recommend reading this two-part series in Orion Magazine.
Part I The Idols of Environmentalism
&
Part II The Ecology of Work
in my opinion, a very pointed series addressing our roles in our "capitalist system" - and how genuine change requires a shift in mindset and lifestyle that most - even the most devout environmentalists - are not willing to make. i think the mindset that these articles are written from represents an interesting perspective that could dramatically change how the design community views "sustainable" architecture and development; and i'm curious to know what others on this thread think about what Curtis White has to say.
is sustainability possible without a significant culture change? Isn't that why entire nations [read cultures of people] can require less than say those from percieved first world countries.
an eco question i haven't seen debated to death yet...
water rights:
my parents grew up on a farm and so i understand a bit about the history of it, but i recently heard that certain gov't orgs. weren't too happy about the push for green roofs and rain water harvesting, as apparently groups of farmers wouldn't be able to sustain their way of life (i.e. get heavily subsidized to keep prices artificially deflated so we artificially keep inflation low, ruin foreign farmers, etc)
wait not that, it was cos they'd not get the water they were "supposed" to get.
these gov't orgs. were looking into levying a significant tax to (further) compensate said farmers. i'm thinking it was npr, but not sure.
I'm not sure how that directly affects farmers. <font color="green">Green roofs</font> are just glorified lawns...- and its usually water that would end up in sewer systems or in a few cases cisterns, but the bulk of it goes out to sea.
techno- yes, you look at it one way and they are just glorified lawns. But they are also a chance to replace the open space you've killed when you built you house, to reduce runoff, and to insulate the fuck out of your roof.
w3- I am still digesting 'The Idols of Environmentalism'. It's a very difficult piece to get through. Does this person write for a living, or does he do something else and just submits a piece when a particular subject moves him strongly? I can tell there's a lot of feeling in it, but frankly the logic is roundabout and I've having trouble following the author on certain logical connections (which are really some goodsized leaps of faith). He argues that couching environmentalism in moral and possibly religious terms (note: evangelism, not evangelicalism) will be more successful than couching it in rational scientific and marketing terms, which I'm having a really hard time swallowing. Yeah, it may more more honest to do so, but sometimes honesty just doesn't get the job done. But I agree wholeheartedly with the criticism that the vast majority of 'environmentalists' are really trying to put humpty dumpty back together again when they're unwilling to not push him off the wall in the first place.
as with anything else, green roof installations have their potential liabilities. as long as we, as designers are aware of them, a green roof can be a great part of a green project.
among some of the issues:
the new thinner systems that don't require much soil also don't provide much insulation! in some cases notably LESS insulation than the conventional way of building a roof.
the greenery that is often used in a green roof installation is sedum. not bad in itself, unless you're not careful where the sedum is coming from. i've heard recently that the types used most often are often coming from half way around the world - an awfully far distance from which to bring it. the conditions under which this imported sedum is developed is also something which should be understood(keeping in mind that the un's definition of sustainability includes political conditions, consideration of poverty and the economic conditions which 'enforce' poverty, and attention to responsible growing practices).
absolutely, that would be a great use of space! I know visually I like ones that incorporate wildflower planting (also easy to maintain), so I'm trying to visualize a roof covered in tomato vines or rows of bean sprouts.
I love it when Gmail does its little "telepathy" thing and gives you news headlines that it thinks you might want to read about. Like this article that it gave me about the world's greenest billionaires.....
rationalist - i don't have much time right now to really respond to what you had to say about 'the idols of environmentalism' - i have a few things i'd like to lay out that i've been thinking about the past few days (mostly from the ecology of work...i read the two articles in reverse order) but i'm going to have to come back to that later when i have a bit more time.
but, to answer your question about who Curtis White is: he's an english professor at Illinois State - that's all I know right now. off the top of my head these are the first articles by him that i've read.
i think a roof garden with herbs would be spectacular - they need so much sun anyway and are easier to maintain than some other vegetables.
i figured this would be a good place to ask this - is anyone out there growing their own food? what about those in apartments? i'm thinking about starting a small container garden (i live in an apt.). does anyone have any experience in that?
Everything I've tried to grow in my apartment has died. I've even killed succulents and bamboo! Apparently I just suck at container gardening though, because I can do picky things like roses as long as they're in the ground, and used to grow the usual sunflower, tomatoes, and such as a kid.
i was once growing about 1/8 of my seasoning consumption. Sounds like a small number doesn't it? It worked out to about 1/2 of the salad I ate 1/2 of the time. And it took a hell of a lot of work. I think mostly because mi mum is an agriculturalist and anti-pesticides/herbicides so i was trying to do it all natural so i used different herbs to combat disease and bugs...but it took forever and was alot of work.
By the time i moved out i couldn't maintain that and my hot shit architectural lifestyle. Foolish me.
10 most effective ways to conserve nature and improve our quality of life:
1. Reduce home energy use by 10%
2. Choose an energy-efficient home & appliances
3. Don't use pesticides
4. Eat meat-free meals one day a week
5. Buy locally grown and produced food
6. Choose a fuel-efficient vehicle
7. Walk, bike, carpool or take transit
8. Choose a home close to work or school
9. Support alternative transportation
10.Learn more and share with others
rationalist, I don't have any experience with the solar powered bags, but the parking meters here in portland (downtown) are solar powered so I bet they would work okay in an overcast climate.
laurilan, we have had a vegetable garden for the past three years, but have our own yard. When I was renting a place I grew roma and cherry tomatoes and basil in a galvanized tub. If you have a grassy spot to put it, poke holes in the bottom. If you don't have much space, you might just stick with an herb garden. Check with your local nursery and see what they suggest, letting them know what kind of exposure you have. Growing your own food is alot of work, but it sure is satisfying around mealtime. Also, farmer's markets are a great alternative if you lack the time/space for a garden. We've found through experimentation what makes sense for us to grow vs. buy locally.
Something on the green building topic that has always struck me---how vernacular architecture and older buildings always incorporated energy saving measures----using appropriate materials that are widely available with strategic placement of openings for ventilation purposes, and utilizing simple building forms. Whenever I've attended any green conferences I always think about how the more things change the more they stay the same! Only now we have EnergyStar!!!
techno, I like Suzuki's last one --- learn more and share with others!
jonas - thanks for the advice. i've been looking into local down where i'm at. florida doesn't seem to be the hotspot for locally grown (which i found slightly surprising). i have been to a couple of farmer's markets, but the growing season is now over. i can't wait to be in a place with a little more space.
i'm probably going to be moving this summer, though, and i'm going to start participating in a CSA wherever i go. i just read the omnivore's dilemma (which is an excellent book if anyone's interested about where our food comes from - it's not too difficult to digest and moves along quickly enough to keep you entertained) and am trying to change some of my habits.
it's amazing how much we are wrecking our land right now - not just through building and transportation, but the food industry as well - maybe even more so.
I would love to be able to grow my own food...I'd love to also have access to a bit of dirt to do that in, but renting makes that hard.
architechno, your list reminds me vaguely of the list that accompanies the movie "An Inconvenient Truth", which I cannot seem to find....(the web site doesn't seem to work anymore)
i'm trying to grow veggies instead of killing trees this year... got two 4 x 12 plots and two 4 x 4 beds half planted. waiting another week for the 'date of last frost' to pass. I'll start posting pictures one of these days...
for plants on structures, aka greenroofs, aka living roofs, aka eco-roofs, et cetera - I'll be posting a feature/news article on 'green roofs for healthy cities' in a few days. just got to write the darn thing. There seems to be lots of misinformation/misperceptions floating round here on why you'd want' to stick chlorophyll up on a roof...
Top Ten reasons to "stick clorophyll up on a roof":
1. Single Ply is ugly
2. Built-up is ugly
3. Oxygen... yeah.
4. Reduce heat islands
5. reduce runoff
6. possibly grow something useful or tasty?
7. the birds and the bees probably like it, if you put the right stuff up there
8. Croquet and other fun reacreation on the roof
.... yeah, I'll let someone else contribute #s 9&10
I'm sure you guys have seen this but thought I would point out the thread on growing your own home.....remarkable concept, if a bit time-consuming....there are some unbelievable plant sculptures on that thread anyway.
I just got back from a lecture given by Andres Duany of DPZ (the new urbanist guy, for those of you not good with names). He was a trip. The whole thing was very dull to start, but after spending about 30 minutes elaborating on theory while sitting on one slide, things started to get interesting. He is obsessed with the notion of planning by using a "transect", meaning that you break down the geography of a city into zones - like concentric circles - and then you diagram the transect based on your ideal version of each zone, and manipulate the code to reflect this.
I am probably doing a poor job of explaining this, but here's the breakdown of the transect: T1 = wilderness, T2 = rural zone, T3 = sub-urban, T4 = general urban, T5 = something else urban (can't recall) and T6 = urban core. Anyway, he's basically preaching this "Smart Code" system of urban planning.....whereby, you find your city's best example of T3 or T5 or whatever, and you write the code accordingly.
I'm bringing this all up because he included environmentalists in the discussion and he made some good points, including a diatribe about how environmentalists keep failing because they don't want to include humans in the environment (paraphrasing). However, I had to take the rest with a grain of salt because he implied that city dwellers were already "green enough" as it is because they "live densely and are socially diverse". He went on to rant about how we don't need to worry about changing our city to be more sustainable because of this. With which I heartily disagree, I don't think it's a bad idea to put solar panels on a roof of an existing building, especially if the building has a flat roof and it's not an eyesore.
There was more, but that's a lot as it is, just wanted to share.
going back to those 2-articles that i posted earlier this week:
the idols of environmentalism & the ecology of work. i think ultimately what caused me to put those up there - what i think about a lot - is that i don't think that architects discuss how our work affects community enough. i think it's 100% necessary to discuss green building, energy consumption, etc.. . but i think we're majorly missing something if we fail to discuss the culture and lifestyle that surrounds each and every building as well.
those articles discussed work and how so many jobs remove people from ever knowing the full impact of what they do every day - not that we can ever know the "full" impact, but it called into question the inhumane nature of corporations and big business that remove people from a sense of local responsibility. i'm not saying i agree w/ everything the author said - but i do think that he's onto something when he discusses how corporate culture removes people, to a certain degree, from the communities they reside in.
i think that discussion is pertinent to us because so much of what is being discussed here has to involve living locally - genuinely living locally - in order to work. sustainable architecture must be coupled with a culture that is sustainable - otherwise i don't think people will ever really get it. i think that the physical structure of a city dramatically influences culture/community...and i think we're in major error if the dialogue about sustainability doesn't constantly address sustainability from both a building/construction and a cultural level.
WK- it's interesting that you brought up Duany. regardless of how one feels about traditional architecture, i think the new urbanism begins to effectively address this issue of community i'm talking about. i don't think that it effectively addresses sustainability from the building/construction standpoint...but it's discussing that other half. so i guess the question is: how do we couple the two? sustainable construction and community?
OK, w3, I finally got around to reading those articles you posted above, and it's a lot to chew on. Here are my thoughts.....
I agree with you when you say you don't think that architects discuss how our work affects community enough, and that sustainability must be approached from both the design angles and on a more fundamental, cultural level.
I also agree that, based on what I saw last night, Duany does begin to address this issue of living locally. I was actually entranced by all the different sketches and diagrams that he presented of city transects....it's very important to look at a city as its own living breathing entity.
***Skip to the next set of these if you don't care about this part***
About that article:
"Needless to say, many people with environmental sympathies will easily agree with what I’ve just said and imagine that in fact they do what they can to resist work and consumption, to resist the world as arranged for the convenience of money."
To start, I don't easily agree with what White proposes in this essay. Regarding that quote, I hold no illusions about the idea that the system is broken. But how can I resist "work and consumption"? Tomorrow, are we all going to wake up and decide that we won't continue to earn a salary or buy a meal, because these activities operate within an immoral construct?
Which reminds me, in the first part, when he brings religion into it, I became a bit disoriented. I don't shun spirituality and I am fine with discussing environmentalism in these terms but we can't assume that everyone else is willing to do so. Furthermore, I disagree that "we have also had to accept science’s contempt for religion and the spiritual". I do not think that science and spirituality are mutally exclusive.
Onward....I do appreciate his assertion that "We need to insist on work that is not destructive, that deepens the worker, that encourages her creativity." I concur. But capitalism is what we're given right now, and people are lazy. Utterly, hopelessly ignorant and lazy. To accomplish a complete turnabout of the system, to "fundamentally reshape our system of living" as White says, we have to start working within the system we are given because people are too lazy to look beyond that.
In conclusion, I would say that I understand what he is trying to say but I feel that the whole thing is meandering and when I want him to propose an action that we should take or, a statement that we should make, it seems like he starts talking about a new subject, like violence. He even mentions at one point that he is "inevitably" asked what he is proposing to do....he never gives us an answer for this. Generally I just feel that he took the time to elaborate on values that I feel like I already have, which is nice, but I require action....a plan of action.
Essentially I feel that we are past the point of talking about it and onto the part where we DO SOMETHING about it.
Which is funny considering how long this post is! I'll stop talking now. I feel like I have just done a homework assignment.
***Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.....
This is something that I've been feeling ever since my first cad-monkey desk job: that humans were not meant to sit at a desk all day. I would be very suprised if anybody said they HADN'T come to that conclusion after working at a desk for a year. I came out of that thinking, "man, I should've been a park ranger or something." Restless limbs + desk is not a combination that was meant to be.
On another point, why should we CARE that the greening of corporate america has not got the right motives behind it? I sure don't. Progress is progress, and I'll embrace it even if the devil himself is urging it forward. I'm fine with thinking of sustainability in ethical terms, but I don't think we ought to expect everyone to share those ethical feelings. It would be great if they did, but it's not realistic.
I agree that the Voltaire analogy is not applicable. It would be, if it were "The person who provides food and shelter for my family has just turned into a ferocious beast and sucked their blood." because unlike the beast in the original quote, capitalism does need SOMETHING to stand in its place, there must be SOME method of economy.
I am on hold and the friendly voice said "Did you know the Queen Elizabeth cruise liner blah blah moves 6 inches with every gallon of diesel fuel consumed?"
btw, I know this was discussed earlier in the post, but the issue of carbon credits.....ok how does that work?
I was at Whole Foods in Westwood yesterday and I saw a sign that they posted up with windturbines (the background image) and the sign said something to the effect that Whole Foods purchases x# of carbon credits for energy (or was it wind credits) to offset the energy used in their stores. It also said that they basically purchase enough to support 100% of the energy used by all their stores. So my question is:
how does that affect or help the environment? I know rationalist (I believe ) said something to the effect of manufacturing plants buying carbon credits, but spewing more than the "normal" (in china if memory serves me right).
so if this is the same....how so? is buying wind credits better? Does that also mean that they are potentially utilizing more energy than what is being bought??
No matter which type of credits you buy, you figure out how many to buy by calculating your utility load or your carbon load. For something like the Whole Foods situation above, they can simply look at their utility bills and see how many megawatts of electricity they use, and purchase credits based on that amount. Yes, there is the potential to underpurchase, but if a corporation genuinely wants to offset 100% of their use, they can always purchase additional credits if they find they're usage has gone up, and the contract obligates the green power company to produce as much green power as they are under contract for, so the only inequality would be produced by an unexpected or improperly calculated demand.
Wind power credits are.... better than carbon offsets, but not as good as contracting directly for green power. Here's the basic rundown, at least as I understand it:
Carbon offsets: you are paying someone else to reduce their carbon usage so that you can feel better about your own carbon usage. The most common usage of these is for Chinese coal-burning plants to be built shittily, then get you and other gullibles to pay for them to be brought up to a more average standard (which is still pretty shitty). Obviously, there is room for much better uses here, but the abuse is so widespread that it's very hard to determine whether your carbon offset is actually doing any good. In general, reducing your own pollution and/or consumption is a much safer bet.
Green power credits: You're still buying your electricity from the regular power company, but you're paying a green power company to pump their green power into the mainstream utility grid. So really, Whole Foods isn't going 100% green, Whole Foods is getting the country as a whole (or their power grid as a whole) to go .01% greener. They're offsetting their usage by enabling green power to be used by the masses, to a tune (approximately) equal to that of what their establishment uses. I've seen them claim in an article that because of the scale of their production, shipping, corporate, and retail usage, it's comparable to a small city switching to green power. So it's a good thing, but in a very round-about sort of way.
Green power usage: First, lets be clear that most places claiming to use green power are really purchasing credits. Obviously, the most direct method for purchasing green power is on-site generation, and most people aren't doing this, though it's probably your best option financially if you plan on staying in your building long enough for the array to pay itself off. Otherwise, many mainstream power companies maintain some green power options (wind turbines, windmill farms, solar farms), and you check a box on your power bill if you want your power to 'come from' the green options. Really, this way isn't that much different than the credits, but the more people check that box, the more green power the company is obligated to provide.
to move this towards a green architecture thread, i thought i'd pass on some interesting sites i stumbled upon whilst doing research...
building study files from the austrian energy agency and for you zumthor phanatics, a summary of kunsthaus bregenz, further rationalizing why it may be perhaps one of the best green buildings out there. these articles are heavily techincal, but a great resource for those that can weed out the info. if LEED best practice buildings look 1/10 as good, well, perhaps more of this place could be like the anamoly that is vorarlberg. the owners of KHB spent half of what they would have for a conventional system by going towards non-conventional systems (solar shading, building mass coupling, groundwater cooling, efficient mech. design)
a lot of the files are german (genau!) but the "keepcool" files are in english. and just a head's up, the energy discussions in the files focus more on systems, rather than how the energy is produced.
in europe, the discussion doesn't focus on solar v. wind v. nuclear as much, merely on ways to make a building more energy efficient, which is what i've brought to my current firm and they're digging it, so i guess that means i'm finally at a firm where i fit in and not seen as some wierd outsider who wants to do fringe work. hells yeah, ya'll.
also, seattle's green building site isn't too shabby, with links to green roofs and other cities green building sites.
and to round out this post, i was recently passed on info about cascadia green building council's living building challenge, basically LEED on HGH, and an attempt to try and go completely off grid. An interesting idea, one I'm not sure I really buy into, but for the right projects, definitely would back. Either way, it assumes LEED "best practice" which should really be mandatory for green projects.
this also qualifies as my most productive posting ever. double hyy.
Thanks rationalist.....it's becoming a little bit clearer. + it's always good to know this. I've noticed that I have become more aware of these kinds of things, and I hope that only others are too. I've envisioned building of architecture that has incorporated many of new and ongoing discussions about ways to renue energy, but in particular some crazy (maybe not so crazy) notions of literal windmill farms or turbines on our architecture. I think that would be truly fascinating.
thanks Holz.....the stuff is interesting material.
holz- technical is GOOD! I'm so tired of going to lectures and forums and reading articles that are all supposed to be super-green, but end up spending 100% of the time just convincing us that green is good. I can't even count how many radio programs I've listened to, lectures I've gone to, or things I've read that I've come out of it with absolutely no new knowledge because of this. There's got to be a deeper level of knowledge/evaluation/analysis of methods out there that I just haven't accessed yet. So yes, technical is so much appreciated.
sweet Cris.....I like the bike. Man......I just might have to add another to my collection. Can I ask you how much it set you back? Where did you get it?
Along those lines....anyone have good suggestions for a decent msgr bag to utilize whilst riding to the metro?
Thanks rationalist.....I love that picture of the of shore wind farm in Denmark. I really hope it does go through.
Green Thread Central
Just found this on YouTube. I think it was recorded in 1992. The issues are remarkably pertinent.
12-year-old addresses the United Nations
If things haven't changed in the past 15 years, we are going to have to do some serious work to get them to change in the next 15!
biking facts I found from a shop promoting a 'bike to work day':
- New bicycle commuters can expect to lose 13 pounds their first year of bicycle commuting. [Bicycling Magazine]
- Trimming one vehicle from your household saves you $340/month. [City of Seattle]
- # While in Japan 15% of commuters bicycle to work, in the Netherlands 50% of commuters bicycle and in China 77% commute by bike; only 1.6% of U.S. commuters bicycle to work. [Washington State Energy Office Extension Services]
So lets see, over the next year I can expect to lose 13 pounds and save $4080? Sign me up!
WK – I read an article from the New York Times about Boston planning to amend its building code to require that all large-scale private construction be “green.” Since you need to sign up for a membership to read the article, I have posted the info below to save everyone the trouble of creating a membership…
*****************
Boston Plans to Go ‘Green’ on Large Building Projects
By KATIE ZEZIMA
Published: December 20, 2006
BOSTON, Dec. 19 — Boston plans to amend its building code to require that all large-scale private construction be “green.”
Under the new regulations, all private construction of at least 50,000 square feet must meet the minimum criteria of the United States Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design standards for new projects.
While other governments have adopted the association’s standards for private construction, Boston is believed to be the first city to revise its building code to adhere to them, said Taryn Holowka, an association spokeswoman.
The Washington City Council passed a bill earlier this month requiring private developers to follow the standards, which Mayor Anthony A. Williams is expected to sign next week.
The City of Pasadena, Calif., has required much of its private construction to meet the standards since April. The State of New Mexico requires new buildings over 15,000 square feet to comply with the standards, while 18 states and 12 federal agencies use them for new public buildings.
The change in Boston’s building code means that each project must meet at least 26 of 69 criteria the Green Building Council established. Developers can choose from the 69 items, which include construction with recycled content, water-efficient landscaping systems and proximity to public transportation. The city is adding four other criteria, including one that would pertain to a project involving historic preservation.
“Boston is growing, and this amendment helps us grow our sustainable green buildings, which are good for public health and air quality,” said Mayor Thomas M. Menino, who started the initiative two years ago. “We’re doing what we should be doing, moving toward better environmental quality. We’re thinking about the future.”
The regulations, expected to be approved by the Boston Redevelopment Authority on Thursday, will take effect upon being publicly posted next week. The Zoning Commission is expected to approve the regulations Jan. 10.
James W. Hunt III, Mr. Menino’s top environmental aide, said in a public hearing Tuesday that a commission would review all new construction projects to ensure they met the standards, which would shift and change over time.
“Our commitment is to grow this city in a sustainable way that enhances the quality of life and helps save on the bottom line,” Mr. Hunt said.
While environmentally friendly construction helps save money in the long run by reducing electricity and energy use, it is typically about 2 to 5 percent more expensive up front. But Mr. Menino said he encountered little resistance from developers and architects, many of whom are embracing the new standards.
“The long-term costs of not doing this are catastrophic,” said Hubert Murray, president of the Boston Society of Architects. “We don’t really have a choice. Yes, it’s a greater first cost, but with that investment we hope to defer the far greater cost of neglect.”
rationalist - good one. i think those stats represent some of the primary issues that designers across the board should be focusing on and promoting w/ regards to sustainability. in my opinion walkability, biking, etc.. , quite possibly represents the most potent solution to much of our dependancy on oil - and other health related issues our society deals with (both physical and social). i think it's accurate to say that sustainability both environmentally and socially begins with walking - and we need to focus on designing cities that naturally make walking, biking, the best way to get around w/ a minimal need for longer trips.
on a slightly different tangent - but maybe not so much - i subscribe to a magazine called Orion that discusses various environmental and social justice related topics that are very pertinent to the design community. the Orion Society to many might represent a certain extreme in environmentalism, but i think that their consistent discussion on sustainable agriculture, and many other social/environmental issues brings us very close to the direction/focus most of us are talking about on this site when we're fully honest about what the terms "green" and "sustainability" really mean.
FOOD 3.5
MOBILITY 0.7
SHELTER 1.2
GOODS/SERVICES 1.2
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 7
Even though I should do better, I'm still surprised its lower than I expected. Maybe its because I walk everywhere (work, school, groceries) and I live in a hole in the wall that I share with a mouse. Now back to the serious conversation.
I read an AIA article recently discussing the difference between sustainability and green architecture. I used to use those two somewhat interchangeably and now I probably won't. The only problem with sustainable design is that it requires much more holistic thinking that deals with design, construction, materials, & etc. at all stages. Because it requires so much thinking, there is not enough time, exposure to clients, and knowledge for casual application. Without some kind of extreme passion, it is very difficult to achieve and often requires infrastructural changes (that is probably outside of an architect's control).
Sustainability is definitely hard. Even just greening architecture can be hard. For instance, if you want to make a parking lot more sustainable, one of the first things that people tell you is to use more permeable materials. So you go, 'ok, that's easy enough', and use permeable concrete, or gravel, or something like that. Wait, what about oil leaks, pollution, etc? So you're getting water back into natural aquifers and reducing runoff, but what kind of water is it you're letting get back into the drinking supply? My office does a lot of work for schools (private K-12 mostly), and we basically have to toss the concept of natural ventilation out the window, no pun intended, right off the bat. Why? Because the teachers refuse to open the windows. WTF?!
These are just a couple of examples that my office particularly has struggled with, but they both show how green architecture can't be practiced in a vaccuum. It's hard, but total sustainability is the only way to go. People need to be educated about this stuff, or much of our work may turn out like hybrid cars: are they good, or bad? Or ok after all?
Wow, great minds must think alike. Haha, just joking of course, but I did think about mentioning that exact article as an example for my post above and was just about to post again until I read yours. Sustainable design does require a kind of thinking that goes beyond the architect's scope in "traditional" practice. When, sustainability seems so unachievable, I can see how most people won't even try techniques that would be helpful although not completely sustainable. Kind of an "all or nothing" approach. It requires very in-depth, holistic, and collaborative research between many fields for it to be truely relevant - maybe even research into "sustainable" and gradual implementation.
Yesterday me and my friend walked up to the casjier at that super-green bp gas station on Robertson and Olympic and my friend asked for a treat. The guy said "tree?" and she said "treat!" and he said "tree" and pointed to a baby tree free for the taking. Ha.
No Twizzlers for me.
That is exactly what my bosses do to me.... they talk themselves out of good ideas with smaller details. For instance, the glazing is not made operable because the teachers won't open it, so why spend the money on something that won't actually be used? So the glazing isn't operable, but what if the teachers come around ten years from now, and realize that they should be opening a window instead of turning on the AC? Well, they can't, because they don't have operable glazing, because at the time of construction it was deemed superfluous.
But really, I would love it if there were some way to teach building users the ways to maximize efficiency in their current buildings, so that if/when they moved somewhere better they would be pushing for the good green stuff instead of fighting against it. I wonder whether there's a market for "Efficiency Consultants" that would provide this sort of service?
______
No commentary on solar powered bags? I'm really curious what you guys think of them.
This bag produces 6.3 Watts of power, can charge a cell phone, ipod, cameras, and even some laptops (needs an additional attachment). I'm really interested in these- they're expensive, but it could concievably keep ones power usage down a bit, and is super convenient if you're like me and always end up somewhere great with a dead camera battery. Are these things only of use in Phoenix, LA, Mexico City, etc? Or would they work in northern climates with more overcast days?
i wanted to recommend reading this two-part series in Orion Magazine.
Part I The Idols of Environmentalism
&
Part II
The Ecology of Work
in my opinion, a very pointed series addressing our roles in our "capitalist system" - and how genuine change requires a shift in mindset and lifestyle that most - even the most devout environmentalists - are not willing to make. i think the mindset that these articles are written from represents an interesting perspective that could dramatically change how the design community views "sustainable" architecture and development; and i'm curious to know what others on this thread think about what Curtis White has to say.
is sustainability possible without a significant culture change? Isn't that why entire nations [read cultures of people] can require less than say those from percieved first world countries.
Interesting when I used Venezuela as a reference (versus somewhere in the US) my carbon footprint is significantly less approx 11 acres
Can I just say that after seeing articles like this - portion of highway collapses after tanker truck crash - I am really looking forward to giving back my car and avoiding highway commuting for a while.
w3, I am anxious to read those articles but I plan to save it for Monday morning when I have nothing to do at work, so I'll get back to you. :o)
an eco question i haven't seen debated to death yet...
water rights:
my parents grew up on a farm and so i understand a bit about the history of it, but i recently heard that certain gov't orgs. weren't too happy about the push for green roofs and rain water harvesting, as apparently groups of farmers wouldn't be able to sustain their way of life (i.e. get heavily subsidized to keep prices artificially deflated so we artificially keep inflation low, ruin foreign farmers, etc)
wait not that, it was cos they'd not get the water they were "supposed" to get.
these gov't orgs. were looking into levying a significant tax to (further) compensate said farmers. i'm thinking it was npr, but not sure.
thoughts?
I'm not sure how that directly affects farmers. <font color="green">Green roofs</font> are just glorified lawns...- and its usually water that would end up in sewer systems or in a few cases cisterns, but the bulk of it goes out to sea.
I am not anti-farmer plight as I am forever with them in whatever fight they engage, but that's apples and fricking watermelons
techno- yes, you look at it one way and they are just glorified lawns. But they are also a chance to replace the open space you've killed when you built you house, to reduce runoff, and to insulate the fuck out of your roof.
w3- I am still digesting 'The Idols of Environmentalism'. It's a very difficult piece to get through. Does this person write for a living, or does he do something else and just submits a piece when a particular subject moves him strongly? I can tell there's a lot of feeling in it, but frankly the logic is roundabout and I've having trouble following the author on certain logical connections (which are really some goodsized leaps of faith). He argues that couching environmentalism in moral and possibly religious terms (note: evangelism, not evangelicalism) will be more successful than couching it in rational scientific and marketing terms, which I'm having a really hard time swallowing. Yeah, it may more more honest to do so, but sometimes honesty just doesn't get the job done. But I agree wholeheartedly with the criticism that the vast majority of 'environmentalists' are really trying to put humpty dumpty back together again when they're unwilling to not push him off the wall in the first place.
as with anything else, green roof installations have their potential liabilities. as long as we, as designers are aware of them, a green roof can be a great part of a green project.
among some of the issues:
the new thinner systems that don't require much soil also don't provide much insulation! in some cases notably LESS insulation than the conventional way of building a roof.
the greenery that is often used in a green roof installation is sedum. not bad in itself, unless you're not careful where the sedum is coming from. i've heard recently that the types used most often are often coming from half way around the world - an awfully far distance from which to bring it. the conditions under which this imported sedum is developed is also something which should be understood(keeping in mind that the un's definition of sustainability includes political conditions, consideration of poverty and the economic conditions which 'enforce' poverty, and attention to responsible growing practices).
the step up then would be roof gardens that provided not just insulation | oxygen | visual respite but also food and|or spices
absolutely, that would be a great use of space! I know visually I like ones that incorporate wildflower planting (also easy to maintain), so I'm trying to visualize a roof covered in tomato vines or rows of bean sprouts.
as long as there was enough space to get in and around the vegetables for weeding and harvesting, of course.
I love it when Gmail does its little "telepathy" thing and gives you news headlines that it thinks you might want to read about. Like this article that it gave me about the world's greenest billionaires.....
Im so glad that this thread keeps some beautiful and fresh discussion/ideas flowing.....
a well deserved change from those silly threads which were running rampant only a couple of weeks ago.
rationalist - i don't have much time right now to really respond to what you had to say about 'the idols of environmentalism' - i have a few things i'd like to lay out that i've been thinking about the past few days (mostly from the ecology of work...i read the two articles in reverse order) but i'm going to have to come back to that later when i have a bit more time.
but, to answer your question about who Curtis White is: he's an english professor at Illinois State - that's all I know right now. off the top of my head these are the first articles by him that i've read.
i think a roof garden with herbs would be spectacular - they need so much sun anyway and are easier to maintain than some other vegetables.
i figured this would be a good place to ask this - is anyone out there growing their own food? what about those in apartments? i'm thinking about starting a small container garden (i live in an apt.). does anyone have any experience in that?
Everything I've tried to grow in my apartment has died. I've even killed succulents and bamboo! Apparently I just suck at container gardening though, because I can do picky things like roses as long as they're in the ground, and used to grow the usual sunflower, tomatoes, and such as a kid.
i was once growing about 1/8 of my seasoning consumption. Sounds like a small number doesn't it? It worked out to about 1/2 of the salad I ate 1/2 of the time. And it took a hell of a lot of work. I think mostly because mi mum is an agriculturalist and anti-pesticides/herbicides so i was trying to do it all natural so i used different herbs to combat disease and bugs...but it took forever and was alot of work.
By the time i moved out i couldn't maintain that and my hot shit architectural lifestyle. Foolish me.
10 most effective ways to conserve nature and improve our quality of life:
1. Reduce home energy use by 10%
2. Choose an energy-efficient home & appliances
3. Don't use pesticides
4. Eat meat-free meals one day a week
5. Buy locally grown and produced food
6. Choose a fuel-efficient vehicle
7. Walk, bike, carpool or take transit
8. Choose a home close to work or school
9. Support alternative transportation
10.Learn more and share with others
via
the previous is by David Suzuki
rationalist, I don't have any experience with the solar powered bags, but the parking meters here in portland (downtown) are solar powered so I bet they would work okay in an overcast climate.
laurilan, we have had a vegetable garden for the past three years, but have our own yard. When I was renting a place I grew roma and cherry tomatoes and basil in a galvanized tub. If you have a grassy spot to put it, poke holes in the bottom. If you don't have much space, you might just stick with an herb garden. Check with your local nursery and see what they suggest, letting them know what kind of exposure you have. Growing your own food is alot of work, but it sure is satisfying around mealtime. Also, farmer's markets are a great alternative if you lack the time/space for a garden. We've found through experimentation what makes sense for us to grow vs. buy locally.
Something on the green building topic that has always struck me---how vernacular architecture and older buildings always incorporated energy saving measures----using appropriate materials that are widely available with strategic placement of openings for ventilation purposes, and utilizing simple building forms. Whenever I've attended any green conferences I always think about how the more things change the more they stay the same! Only now we have EnergyStar!!!
techno, I like Suzuki's last one --- learn more and share with others!
jonas - thanks for the advice. i've been looking into local down where i'm at. florida doesn't seem to be the hotspot for locally grown (which i found slightly surprising). i have been to a couple of farmer's markets, but the growing season is now over. i can't wait to be in a place with a little more space.
i'm probably going to be moving this summer, though, and i'm going to start participating in a CSA wherever i go. i just read the omnivore's dilemma (which is an excellent book if anyone's interested about where our food comes from - it's not too difficult to digest and moves along quickly enough to keep you entertained) and am trying to change some of my habits.
it's amazing how much we are wrecking our land right now - not just through building and transportation, but the food industry as well - maybe even more so.
I would love to be able to grow my own food...I'd love to also have access to a bit of dirt to do that in, but renting makes that hard.
architechno, your list reminds me vaguely of the list that accompanies the movie "An Inconvenient Truth", which I cannot seem to find....(the web site doesn't seem to work anymore)
Here's a link to a program in pdx for people in need of a little dirt.
http://www.portlandonline.com/parks/index.cfm?c=djieg
Maybe your town has community gardening as an option too?
yea they have huge signs in Monty that advertise grow your own
with hydroponics, of course most people think it refers to pot-culture
i'm trying to grow veggies instead of killing trees this year... got two 4 x 12 plots and two 4 x 4 beds half planted. waiting another week for the 'date of last frost' to pass. I'll start posting pictures one of these days...
for plants on structures, aka greenroofs, aka living roofs, aka eco-roofs, et cetera - I'll be posting a feature/news article on 'green roofs for healthy cities' in a few days. just got to write the darn thing. There seems to be lots of misinformation/misperceptions floating round here on why you'd want' to stick chlorophyll up on a roof...
Top Ten reasons to "stick clorophyll up on a roof":
1. Single Ply is ugly
2. Built-up is ugly
3. Oxygen... yeah.
4. Reduce heat islands
5. reduce runoff
6. possibly grow something useful or tasty?
7. the birds and the bees probably like it, if you put the right stuff up there
8. Croquet and other fun reacreation on the roof
.... yeah, I'll let someone else contribute #s 9&10
I'm sure you guys have seen this but thought I would point out the thread on growing your own home.....remarkable concept, if a bit time-consuming....there are some unbelievable plant sculptures on that thread anyway.
I just got back from a lecture given by Andres Duany of DPZ (the new urbanist guy, for those of you not good with names). He was a trip. The whole thing was very dull to start, but after spending about 30 minutes elaborating on theory while sitting on one slide, things started to get interesting. He is obsessed with the notion of planning by using a "transect", meaning that you break down the geography of a city into zones - like concentric circles - and then you diagram the transect based on your ideal version of each zone, and manipulate the code to reflect this.
I am probably doing a poor job of explaining this, but here's the breakdown of the transect: T1 = wilderness, T2 = rural zone, T3 = sub-urban, T4 = general urban, T5 = something else urban (can't recall) and T6 = urban core. Anyway, he's basically preaching this "Smart Code" system of urban planning.....whereby, you find your city's best example of T3 or T5 or whatever, and you write the code accordingly.
I'm bringing this all up because he included environmentalists in the discussion and he made some good points, including a diatribe about how environmentalists keep failing because they don't want to include humans in the environment (paraphrasing). However, I had to take the rest with a grain of salt because he implied that city dwellers were already "green enough" as it is because they "live densely and are socially diverse". He went on to rant about how we don't need to worry about changing our city to be more sustainable because of this. With which I heartily disagree, I don't think it's a bad idea to put solar panels on a roof of an existing building, especially if the building has a flat roof and it's not an eyesore.
There was more, but that's a lot as it is, just wanted to share.
going back to those 2-articles that i posted earlier this week:
the idols of environmentalism & the ecology of work. i think ultimately what caused me to put those up there - what i think about a lot - is that i don't think that architects discuss how our work affects community enough. i think it's 100% necessary to discuss green building, energy consumption, etc.. . but i think we're majorly missing something if we fail to discuss the culture and lifestyle that surrounds each and every building as well.
those articles discussed work and how so many jobs remove people from ever knowing the full impact of what they do every day - not that we can ever know the "full" impact, but it called into question the inhumane nature of corporations and big business that remove people from a sense of local responsibility. i'm not saying i agree w/ everything the author said - but i do think that he's onto something when he discusses how corporate culture removes people, to a certain degree, from the communities they reside in.
i think that discussion is pertinent to us because so much of what is being discussed here has to involve living locally - genuinely living locally - in order to work. sustainable architecture must be coupled with a culture that is sustainable - otherwise i don't think people will ever really get it. i think that the physical structure of a city dramatically influences culture/community...and i think we're in major error if the dialogue about sustainability doesn't constantly address sustainability from both a building/construction and a cultural level.
WK- it's interesting that you brought up Duany. regardless of how one feels about traditional architecture, i think the new urbanism begins to effectively address this issue of community i'm talking about. i don't think that it effectively addresses sustainability from the building/construction standpoint...but it's discussing that other half. so i guess the question is: how do we couple the two? sustainable construction and community?
OK, w3, I finally got around to reading those articles you posted above, and it's a lot to chew on. Here are my thoughts.....
I agree with you when you say you don't think that architects discuss how our work affects community enough, and that sustainability must be approached from both the design angles and on a more fundamental, cultural level.
I also agree that, based on what I saw last night, Duany does begin to address this issue of living locally. I was actually entranced by all the different sketches and diagrams that he presented of city transects....it's very important to look at a city as its own living breathing entity.
***Skip to the next set of these if you don't care about this part***
About that article:
"Needless to say, many people with environmental sympathies will easily agree with what I’ve just said and imagine that in fact they do what they can to resist work and consumption, to resist the world as arranged for the convenience of money."
To start, I don't easily agree with what White proposes in this essay. Regarding that quote, I hold no illusions about the idea that the system is broken. But how can I resist "work and consumption"? Tomorrow, are we all going to wake up and decide that we won't continue to earn a salary or buy a meal, because these activities operate within an immoral construct?
Which reminds me, in the first part, when he brings religion into it, I became a bit disoriented. I don't shun spirituality and I am fine with discussing environmentalism in these terms but we can't assume that everyone else is willing to do so. Furthermore, I disagree that "we have also had to accept science’s contempt for religion and the spiritual". I do not think that science and spirituality are mutally exclusive.
Onward....I do appreciate his assertion that "We need to insist on work that is not destructive, that deepens the worker, that encourages her creativity." I concur. But capitalism is what we're given right now, and people are lazy. Utterly, hopelessly ignorant and lazy. To accomplish a complete turnabout of the system, to "fundamentally reshape our system of living" as White says, we have to start working within the system we are given because people are too lazy to look beyond that.
In conclusion, I would say that I understand what he is trying to say but I feel that the whole thing is meandering and when I want him to propose an action that we should take or, a statement that we should make, it seems like he starts talking about a new subject, like violence. He even mentions at one point that he is "inevitably" asked what he is proposing to do....he never gives us an answer for this. Generally I just feel that he took the time to elaborate on values that I feel like I already have, which is nice, but I require action....a plan of action.
Essentially I feel that we are past the point of talking about it and onto the part where we DO SOMETHING about it.
Which is funny considering how long this post is! I'll stop talking now. I feel like I have just done a homework assignment.
***Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.....
This is something that I've been feeling ever since my first cad-monkey desk job: that humans were not meant to sit at a desk all day. I would be very suprised if anybody said they HADN'T come to that conclusion after working at a desk for a year. I came out of that thinking, "man, I should've been a park ranger or something." Restless limbs + desk is not a combination that was meant to be.
On another point, why should we CARE that the greening of corporate america has not got the right motives behind it? I sure don't. Progress is progress, and I'll embrace it even if the devil himself is urging it forward. I'm fine with thinking of sustainability in ethical terms, but I don't think we ought to expect everyone to share those ethical feelings. It would be great if they did, but it's not realistic.
I agree that the Voltaire analogy is not applicable. It would be, if it were "The person who provides food and shelter for my family has just turned into a ferocious beast and sucked their blood." because unlike the beast in the original quote, capitalism does need SOMETHING to stand in its place, there must be SOME method of economy.
I am on hold and the friendly voice said "Did you know the Queen Elizabeth cruise liner blah blah moves 6 inches with every gallon of diesel fuel consumed?"
wow, you're kidding right?
btw, I know this was discussed earlier in the post, but the issue of carbon credits.....ok how does that work?
I was at Whole Foods in Westwood yesterday and I saw a sign that they posted up with windturbines (the background image) and the sign said something to the effect that Whole Foods purchases x# of carbon credits for energy (or was it wind credits) to offset the energy used in their stores. It also said that they basically purchase enough to support 100% of the energy used by all their stores. So my question is:
how does that affect or help the environment? I know rationalist (I believe ) said something to the effect of manufacturing plants buying carbon credits, but spewing more than the "normal" (in china if memory serves me right).
so if this is the same....how so? is buying wind credits better? Does that also mean that they are potentially utilizing more energy than what is being bought??
No matter which type of credits you buy, you figure out how many to buy by calculating your utility load or your carbon load. For something like the Whole Foods situation above, they can simply look at their utility bills and see how many megawatts of electricity they use, and purchase credits based on that amount. Yes, there is the potential to underpurchase, but if a corporation genuinely wants to offset 100% of their use, they can always purchase additional credits if they find they're usage has gone up, and the contract obligates the green power company to produce as much green power as they are under contract for, so the only inequality would be produced by an unexpected or improperly calculated demand.
Wind power credits are.... better than carbon offsets, but not as good as contracting directly for green power. Here's the basic rundown, at least as I understand it:
Carbon offsets: you are paying someone else to reduce their carbon usage so that you can feel better about your own carbon usage. The most common usage of these is for Chinese coal-burning plants to be built shittily, then get you and other gullibles to pay for them to be brought up to a more average standard (which is still pretty shitty). Obviously, there is room for much better uses here, but the abuse is so widespread that it's very hard to determine whether your carbon offset is actually doing any good. In general, reducing your own pollution and/or consumption is a much safer bet.
Green power credits: You're still buying your electricity from the regular power company, but you're paying a green power company to pump their green power into the mainstream utility grid. So really, Whole Foods isn't going 100% green, Whole Foods is getting the country as a whole (or their power grid as a whole) to go .01% greener. They're offsetting their usage by enabling green power to be used by the masses, to a tune (approximately) equal to that of what their establishment uses. I've seen them claim in an article that because of the scale of their production, shipping, corporate, and retail usage, it's comparable to a small city switching to green power. So it's a good thing, but in a very round-about sort of way.
Green power usage: First, lets be clear that most places claiming to use green power are really purchasing credits. Obviously, the most direct method for purchasing green power is on-site generation, and most people aren't doing this, though it's probably your best option financially if you plan on staying in your building long enough for the array to pay itself off. Otherwise, many mainstream power companies maintain some green power options (wind turbines, windmill farms, solar farms), and you check a box on your power bill if you want your power to 'come from' the green options. Really, this way isn't that much different than the credits, but the more people check that box, the more green power the company is obligated to provide.
to move this towards a green architecture thread, i thought i'd pass on some interesting sites i stumbled upon whilst doing research...
building study files from the austrian energy agency and for you zumthor phanatics, a summary of kunsthaus bregenz, further rationalizing why it may be perhaps one of the best green buildings out there. these articles are heavily techincal, but a great resource for those that can weed out the info. if LEED best practice buildings look 1/10 as good, well, perhaps more of this place could be like the anamoly that is vorarlberg. the owners of KHB spent half of what they would have for a conventional system by going towards non-conventional systems (solar shading, building mass coupling, groundwater cooling, efficient mech. design)
a lot of the files are german (genau!) but the "keepcool" files are in english. and just a head's up, the energy discussions in the files focus more on systems, rather than how the energy is produced.
in europe, the discussion doesn't focus on solar v. wind v. nuclear as much, merely on ways to make a building more energy efficient, which is what i've brought to my current firm and they're digging it, so i guess that means i'm finally at a firm where i fit in and not seen as some wierd outsider who wants to do fringe work. hells yeah, ya'll.
also, seattle's green building site isn't too shabby, with links to green roofs and other cities green building sites.
and to round out this post, i was recently passed on info about cascadia green building council's living building challenge, basically LEED on HGH, and an attempt to try and go completely off grid. An interesting idea, one I'm not sure I really buy into, but for the right projects, definitely would back. Either way, it assumes LEED "best practice" which should really be mandatory for green projects.
this also qualifies as my most productive posting ever. double hyy.
Thanks rationalist.....it's becoming a little bit clearer. + it's always good to know this. I've noticed that I have become more aware of these kinds of things, and I hope that only others are too. I've envisioned building of architecture that has incorporated many of new and ongoing discussions about ways to renue energy, but in particular some crazy (maybe not so crazy) notions of literal windmill farms or turbines on our architecture. I think that would be truly fascinating.
thanks Holz.....the stuff is interesting material.
holz- technical is GOOD! I'm so tired of going to lectures and forums and reading articles that are all supposed to be super-green, but end up spending 100% of the time just convincing us that green is good. I can't even count how many radio programs I've listened to, lectures I've gone to, or things I've read that I've come out of it with absolutely no new knowledge because of this. There's got to be a deeper level of knowledge/evaluation/analysis of methods out there that I just haven't accessed yet. So yes, technical is so much appreciated.
In the news this morning: Offshore Wind Farm for Delaware?. Heard this while driving into work, really hope it goes through.
where the hell is my post?
ha ha, oops, i don't know what happened when i hit the preview button a sec ago. anyway...
woo hoo! i got my bike yesterday!
the matrix
sweet Cris.....I like the bike. Man......I just might have to add another to my collection. Can I ask you how much it set you back? Where did you get it?
Along those lines....anyone have good suggestions for a decent msgr bag to utilize whilst riding to the metro?
Thanks rationalist.....I love that picture of the of shore wind farm in Denmark. I really hope it does go through.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.