this is pretty much all that this vehicle is good for

Hell ya!

No judgment from me, as I’m working on a deadline too, but it is depressing that a looming deadline is more important than looming a climate catastrophe. I’ve thought quite a lot about architects as activists and it always seems pretty clear the priorities are the clients and what they want rather than whatever issue we want to take a stand on.

In other words, activism doesn’t pay the bills

If it helps, my deadline is a presentation on practical approaches to low-carbon construction. As part of the presentation I'll be announcing a new Pretty Good House website that I'm working on, which will be a resource for architects, builders and homeowners to find clear guidelines for energy efficient, low-carbon construction.

More info here: https://www.finehomebuilding.com/about.

Hopefully that at least partially makes up for my lack of participation in the strike.

Everyday, that's probably a good reason for an architect union.

Maybe part of the problem is that people look at an emotional 12 yo with a sense of entitlement and cave like morons. The problems will not be solved by crybabies...they won’t be solved by self righteous climate activists who pump out as much CO2 as climate deniers...they will be solved by kids who have parents that tell them they aren’t entitled to shit...and they have to study and solve problems themselves...those kids will go off to MIT and work on new technologies that could actually affect the planet in a positive way...they entitled activists will maybe if they are lucky get 5 mins of fame on CNN.

Wrong. The technology already exists. Look at nuclear wave reactors. Sustainable energy production is possible. But people who react emotionally, fearfully, and greedily have prevented political progress. The appeal to emotions, is essential to being able to realize technological change that is needed. A shift from an economic growth mentality to one of sustainability is a big leap that is needed and will only be overcome with an emotional appeal. An emotion as powerful as greed for growth.

“Greed for growth”. What does that mean? How do you stop growth without severe consequences to all sorts of things? It’s easy to make these general statements, but the question is how? Yes, the technology exists if we include nuclear (which I’m for) but how do you replace the system and infrastructure already in place without completely disrupting every aspect of society, legality, liberties, human rights, economy, etc.....There are downstream effects to these things. You can’t demand such a grand vision without understanding those effects from many many angles and disciplines.

Yes it’s about fear. It’s about fear or nefarious people misusing the enormous totalitarian power that would be required to implement such a change...and weighing that fear against an uncertain outcome that may not even make much of a difference especially if not on a global scale. So yes, Fear is a logical response. Fear of the actual effects of global warming is also a logical response to the status quo. Not saying it’s not, but to dismiss the fear of such an unbelievably large rewriting of society is imo tantamount to...well climate denial.

Every one I agree with is good. Every

One I disagree with is a troll. Basically how people on here operate volunteer...

You're such a tool. The fact that you still use the same tired "Democrat" slur shows how uncreative you are. It's a shame you're any part of making buildings.

Deblasio couldn't change a lightbulb and he’s now a building energy expert. Ha

Are you an architect or a landscape designer?

landscape designer, but have an m-arch and several years experience in residential construction ...and did a little teaching years ago...

Designer...design/build coming soon...

How much hot air do your landscapes absorb?

Lots

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/greta-thunberg-climate-activist-united-nations/amp/

Here’s one on why we shouldn’t listen to stomping teenagers.

Conservative news attacking the way in which a liberal brings attention to climate change, shocker. There were completely unrelated percentages attempting to relate things that have changed to quality of life. The numbers that really should be in that article are the hundreds of percent increase in the cost of education or the skyrocketing housing prices related to average earnings of college students or the planet being turned into a huge ball of trash, etc..? Younger folks could give a shit less if the life expectancy raised from 63 to 71 years of age... that just means a longer time on earth dealing with all of these shitty consequences. Instead of addressing actual issues, Lowry just props his entire argument up with unrelated facts, says that "today’s youth will have more resources and technology to grapple with it" and a deal with our mess mentality. What a genius

Yeah. Deal with life. Kinda like every single generation has for the last 200,000 years or so. Do you think your generation has it harder? Lmfao....life is easier than ever before. Climate change is a problem, but scientists (not Dutch 12 year olds actual scientists) aren’t predicting extinction...they are predicting massive turmoil, but nothing that we won’t be able to engineer our way out of Over time. We will adapt. Stop crying.

Okay, I never wrote anything about extinction, so put that back from wherever it came from. I also never wrote anything about any generation having it easy; I wrote about facts. I wrote about the cost of education and housing compared to wages. I also wrote about how pollution and climate change is an inevitable crisis. All of which are worse than whatever year(s) you're referring to. We are talking about consequences that we all have to face when it comes to ecological problems, and pretending as they will disappear doesn't satisfy as an answer. People are trying to preserve our ecosystem and quality of life, and the best you can come up with is "Deal with life." The mentality - we'll figure it out - is the epitome of not dealing with life. Also - What do you mean by life is easier than ever before? Picking up fast food and turning on Netflix isn't what we're talking abou t here.

Life is easier than it ever has been at any other point in history. That’s a fact. Climate change is an extreme threat to our way of life. Yes, we must deal with it. No, we shouldn’t deal with it by centralizing control over the economy, or surrendering liberty and rights to the state. That’s a huge mistake, and climate change is being used as an excuse to usher in an overall economic takeover by people who want more power. Humans will adapt is my point. When the stressors become greater we will figure out ways to adapt. Yes, that’s a sad way to do it. Yes, it would be better to plan for the next century. No, humans are not capable of doing so without succumbing to extreme authoritarian controls that may not work anyway to solve the problem and will almost certainly cause economic turmoil and geopolitical imbalances. No one loves the natural world more than me...and no one is a sad to see the declines and destruction...but we need to allow for and accept that slow decentralized progress is the only viable and socially/economically sustainable way to proceed. That’s all I’m saying. We are good at that. We are not good at abrupt centralized changes. My point is, work on your part in solving the problem rather than protest and demand solutions from others. When has the slogan gone from “ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country...” to “I demand my country solves my problems.”....?

Housing, education, etc....are same thing. Why do you people trust government? They have been the primary force behind the problems in the first place. The energy sector is the way it is because of govt. it’s govt and military that has set up the conditions for a oil centric economy. Private industry alone wouldn’t have been able to become internationally dominant if not backed by the govt. Why are you all so willing to put the “Wolf in charge of the hen house?”

That’s the part that I just don’t understand

we are not going to agree on this

It goes the other way too. The right wing neo cons are obviously stifling private industry by giving unfair monopolistic advantages to big oil. Same for big Agriculture. They are also artificially propping up outdated industries like coal. Local government and state govt is also giving monopolies to energy providers, and creating disadvantages for solar. The republicans are a negative force. The democrats are a null force. That’s my take on the politics of the issue. As for the more insteresting discussion on renewable energy...Only considering existing technologies...natural gas, nuclear, wind, geothermal, solar...all of the above can probably be greatly expanded. Expansion of those industries is important. Sequestration...plant more forests...protect all existing forests...decentralized agriculture...we need a Teddy Roosevelt approach, not a Franklin D Roosevelt one..

In spirit and practice to make this issue palatable to the majority voter base.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by a TR approach instead of an FDR one?

I'll bet he means that resources are there to be used, but TR himself said 

"We have become great because of the lavish use of our resources. But the time has come to inquire seriously what will happen when our forests are gone, when the coal, the iron, the oil, and the gas are exhausted, when the soils have still further impoverished and washed into the streams, polluting the rivers, denuding the fields and obstructing navigation. "

Fucking radical leftist, that guy.

I know, check out what TR wrote in his autobiography ... "I have always believed that it would also be necessary to give the National Government complete power over the organization and capitalization of all business concerns engaged in inter-State commerce."

“I'll bet he means that resources are there to be used, but TR himself said”. No, that’s not what I mean at all. Lol.

First, The government does a good job at conservation...conservation needs to take center stage. Second, end foreign oil wars and let oils true price take hold. Third, innovators do their thing and remove special breaks for Big oil, electric providers, Agriculture, etc. most problems (with exception of conservation) can be solved by removing the hand of government.

So how does that relate to a TR approach?

Aren’t you aware of his creation of national parks? He spoke about conservation in a...conservative sense...in a pro American tone...don’t underestimate the power of tone and style...Why were the Dakota pipeline protests such a bipartisan things? Why was Al Gore so divisive...terrible branding of an issue that really shouldn’t be partisan...TR talked the talk. He was an outdoorsman. He spoke about conservation in a way that wasn’t divisive. “You stole my childhood!!!!wahhhh”. Argument instantly lost. She could have been protesting against cancer and half the country would be pro cancer next day. Props to her...she’s 16...I was passed out in a field at 16...but we really can’t have children lecturing adults...it’s annoying.

So you’re upset because it’s a teenage girl speaking the message? It’s not really the message, it’s the messenger? If TR himself was saying we’re robbing our children of their future you’d be ok with it because he was a powerful man from a wealthy family. Got it.

“So your saying”....read what I actually wrote, how bout that...the message is being convoluted with leftist politics and culture...when in fact...climate has nothing to really do with politics or identity...it has to do with science, environmental management, and technology...the left is trying to tether these issues to left/right politics ...leftist policies = good for environment... right policies = bad. Fake news right there. No evidence what so ever that far left policies will be better. Actually quite a mountain of evidence to the contrary. So yes, the way the issue is being framed is a big big problem. The goal should be to get everyone behind sustainability...not to exploit the issue and claim it as political territory...yes, the republicans are very much to blame. They missed the ball...not assigning blame to left, just saying the issue has become political and cultural. Using appeals to emotion as Greta has, and the leftist media glorifying her, has furthered the divisiveness on the issue.

Ok, makes even more sense now. It’s not that it’s a teenage girl, it’s that it’s not coming from someone that shares your political views. So you make the case that it should be apolitical so you can get behind it without having to take a hard look at your politics ... all the while reinforcing the political nature of this by parroting the right’s political talking points.
Keep in mind that it wasn’t the left that tried to argue the science was wrong and that climate change wasn’t really a thing delaying action.

Are you slow? I’m not making this up. Do you think Adults are going to take an issue seriously when a kid is lecturing? How can you not see the absurdity in that? Kids don’t know anything.

Answer this....did the Greta thing unite or further polarize? Answer is polarize....therefore I’m correct.

Actually, according to some climate scientists, she is getting people to unite in a way they haven't been able too. 

"'Speaking as a climate change scientist who has been working on this issue for 20 years and saying the same thing for 20 years, she is getting people to listen, which we have failed to do,' said Saleemul Huq, director of the International Centre for Climate Change & Development in London."

"'She has been a catalytic leader,' Benson said. 'We’re seeing more grassroots action, and she’s creating a movement where young people are pushing communities, cities, states and corporations and saying, ‘we’re not going to wait.'"

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/climate-scientists-say-greta-thunberg-s-efforts-are-building-real-ncna1059321

But you're missing what I’m getting at. I am basically saying that sustainability has become something for the wimpy. I know that sounds stupid, and it is stupid, but that’s how it’s manifested culturally. The Prius effect...Then Tesla makes electric sexy...Tesla carries less cultural baggage. Not sure I’m being clear...4 hours sleep pretty much every night...But what I do (Design landscapes) I can clearly see a cultural division between good client (usually leftists who like and want sustainable design) and right wingers (who want don’t care.). There is no reason for this, yet the subject has become politicalicised to to a point. I think we need to break that down. We need to appeal to the outdoors people, the hunters, the people with field and stream subscriptions, the farmers, the rural people...This needs to be done. All I am saying. TR had that swagger.

Maybe if some people like yourself, who actually do appear to have some common ground with others participating, would participate instead of complaining about the messenger ... more of those people you think need to be convinced would come along. You say it shouldn’t be a partisan issue yet you continue to make it one. You seem to want to wait around for someone else to make it outdoorsy sexy, but it seems like you might actually be in a good position to do just that. So grab your gun, a couple of friends, some right winger clients with a Field and Stream subscription, and participate rather than complain about those who do ... make it more than just a bunch of leftists out there protesting. You could even follow Wood Guy’s lead and start writing articles for Field and Stream about sustainability in TR swagger you long for.

Lol. Fair enough...I’d like to think I contribute by the work I do. I’ve converted hundreds of properties into xeric landscapes with native plants...I think my role is about integrating nature into built environments...using art and design to celebrate natural phenomena...make it immersive...but I think you are correct...

This is symbolic demand for change. Individuals changing their ways en masse would not save us, as the majority of bad behavior is on a much larger scale than the individual. Grid waste, generation of energy, tech and manufacturing waste, etc. We cannot save the world even if we were able to practice 100% what we preach. So the protests are to convince the interests that CAN make a massive difference to start leading instead of cashing in.

How do you demand change for a technologically deeply ingrained problem? If we can’t save ourselves, then who saves us? Batman?

Yes individuals changing their ways en masse would.

A magic device that grants wishes would fix it.

100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions since 1988. 25 corporations and state-owned entities were responsible for more than half of global industrial emissions in that same period.

https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c...

Notably the companies on this list are all energy production companies, and most of them state owned or public (literally only 9% are for-profit private companies, and none of the top 4!). This isn't a capitalism problem, not a waste problem, not a lifestyle problem -it's an energy problem. Our only way out is by figuring out how to produce non CO2 energy. And to the extent the public has little control over energy sourcing, protests are a rational act of expression. A will yearning for a way.

Could be reused boxes.

That’s what I assumed, cardboard boxes turned into signs
that now likely cannot be recycled.

You realize that consumer recycling is by and large not doing anything to truly help the environment, right? Especially cardboard and plastic which are downcycled, not recycled. If one uses compostable paints, the boxes are better served to provide visual calls to action than whatever bullshit downcycled product they MIGHT become.

People shouldn’t recycle?

kind of. but life itself isn't stably sustainable, nor is the earth a stable environment. dynamic adaptation always becomes necessary at some point. look up the great oxygenation event, snowball earth, and the modern cycles of ice ages and a green sahara. earth changes a lot, sometimes quickly. fwiw native americans are believed to have killed off most of the north american megafauna including mammoths and american lions. there isn't evidence of long term sustainable habitation anywhere people have settled - they are too smart to fit into the system. we just need to make a system we can manage to our wishes.

Midlander, I agree with you to some degree--I don't think it's possible to build our way out of this. But I feel a deep urgency to do what we can to slow the changes that are already beginning to accelerate, to give people (and flora and fauna) a chance of adapting.

Have you read this book on extinction: https://www.amazon.com/Sixth-Extinction-Unnatural-History/dp/0805092994? My friend Dan's sister won the Pulitzer prize for it a few years ago. It's an engaging read.

i'm unironically putting this on my reading list for my flights next week. my views are complex, and i'm curious to keep thinking. i suppose the point i wanted to make is just that this is an issue best viewed as a logistical problem and not a moral issue. and as a logistical problem, there is a ceiling on how much architecture can help.

No, that would be considered racist. Only white people countries are bad.

You're such a NERD! ;)

China is a much bigger polluter than India. Both in terms of actual carbon emissions, and the amount of pure shit that is Made in China

I did see some news/photos of protests in India and in Hong Kong. I did not see anything from mainland China, but I also saw reported that no protests were authorized in China. The same report noted that Chinese youth leaders would take action in other ways by their own methods.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/09/planet-thousands-join-global-climate-strike-asia-190920040636503.html

80 Percent of Indian Sewage Flows Untreated Into Country's Rivers

Greenpeace China told the Guardian that one third of the country’s rivers are contaminated. According to a report from the ministry of water resources in April 2016, wells are also polluted. “In cities, you have wastewater from sewage, shops, factories and agriculture, which add other pollutants like persistent organics and heavy metals. It’s usually not fit for drinking or for crops,” explains Dr Wolfgang Kinzelbach from the Institute of Environmental Engineering in Zurich, Switzerland, an expert on China’s water management.

Maybe looking at reported "carbon emissions per capita" isn't the best statistic to compare them to the US.

55 percent of monitored waterways in the United States are impaired by pollution https://www.livescience.com/28669-dirty-water-report.html

Zavala, why not? They have more than four times our population but less than twice our emissions, and a similar land area.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html

https://www.nature.com/immersive/d41586-019-02711-4/index.html

Water pollution is a big deal, but it is dwarfed by atmospheric climate breakdown. And at least China is still committed to the Paris Accord. 

I'm glad you base your opinions on the answer to this irrelevant question. Should I kill one person? Does China or India kill more than one person ?

is that south orange county? that might be an in'n'out on the right

Agree. Leftist politics has become a religion. I think it’s because the left abandoned religion...then the human need for believing in something kicked in and politics filled the void. There is nothing objectively “bad” about being a “virus”...survival is the driving force of all species...people who expect people to act divine are delusional...we are slightly more clever less hairy apes...I don’t take this whole civilization thing too seriously...

all politics is a religion. unless you're clever and cynical, in which case you'll tolerate horse trading and the light corruption of favors for friends.

meh, there's so much bullshit in that statement Happy, that you don't go into any detail, and bring God(?) into the conversation, only could mean one thing; you don't believe it yourself.

​this has nothing to do with politics or religion. this has everything to do with too many humans, behaving like humans. it's like the prisoner's dilemma on a global scale. we will never sacrifice our own convenience, comfort, and shiny trinkets because we will always believe someone else is not, even if it means we all die in a hot plastic hell created by our own selfishness.

I just figured out a new way to analyze the tragedy of the commons. Thanks arch76

Humans have been designated as a protected species in the intergalactic realm as a critical food source for the endangered mosquito.