carbon consumption equalizes the playing field, but penalizes the emerging economies that haven't invested in high efficiency manufacturing methods - that may not be a bad thing, but will take some effort to overcome the resistance. the point of CHEVALIER in her nytimes column, is a simple carbon emissions tax has too many loop holes that penalize places where the tax is enforced and encourages places like china to keep up business as usual. So if the carbon consumption tax becomes a universal tariff (not that the WTO will approve this), it levels the playing field and doesn't allow cheaters to win.
Phil, its great to see your idea and presentation maturing. So are you submitting an abstract to greenbuild?
Barry,
I asked Peter Bennett, an economist who consults several congress persons on the subject, and he provided a key bit of information. If it's a tax it's treated differently in international law than if its a tariff. If a foreign country does not collect a fair tax on it's global environmental impacts then a trading country is free to collect it in lieu of their cooperation. It would not be legal to collect it as a tariff on their good though. ..I think I'm explaining it right..
Anyway, if China doesn't penalize carbon and we have a scientific way to measure it, we can apply a proportionate penalty to their imports. The key would be to make it competitively advantageous for businesses to individually be accurate in reporting their carbon, so people will have the most useful information for decision making. You could do that if the default for not submitting a verifiable accounting was to be charged the worst case presumption for people hiding their carbon.
The issue of balance between developing and developed countries can't be resolved until people realize we need the maximum feasible adaptive response from everyone. That may be realized when people see that the next bigger problem in our way is that all the long term efficiency curves are leveling off. That's the complete opposite of what everyone wants. They're all leveling off at the same time as our effort to find new efficiencies is increasing. Having efficiencies dramatically improving is an essential part of every major plan.
That fairly clearly indicates to me that the natural system (the real thing, not my or anyone else's model) is running out of new efficiencies. The key evidence is that the curves are exponential decay curves, what natural systems do when they're running out of things. I think I can explain some of why, but I don't really need to when what I'd be explaining is the simple fact that we are making buildings and the economies more efficient slower and slower, while planning on having them become more efficient faster and faster. What's happening and what we're planning on are just different.
As for conferences abstracts, it's all sort of a moving target. I guess I should inquire how to do that.
and I thought some of their ideas were quite interesting. I was especially struck by the quote "THE EXM is as retarded as green capitalism." in regards to their theoretical Edible Excess Machine that would use the x-rays of an old TV to turn trash into edible food.
Worth a read. I don't think the ideas are necessarily new, but I think they are a good example of artists tackling issues that arise from the (hopefully) soon-to-be booming green economy, albeit on a conceptual level.
I see plenty of artists attacking the flaws and ironies that arise during the greening of America, but I wonder what role architects can play in bringing these pertinent issues to light? I know as architects we have the ability to "control" the built environment, but it seems as though that is not enough.
It was hard to notice with all the media attention about CAFE standards in the new energy bill, but it basically adopts the Architecture 2030 initiative, requiring all federal buildings to consume zero fossil-fuel based energy by 2030. It also requires the creation of a couple of offices within the federal government specifically focused on green building, and requires the adoption of a federal green building certification program.
It seems the USGBC has been in the trenches with the congressional offices helping draft this, doing a considerably better job at lobbying than the AIA . . .
laurilan, I didn't see your question the other day....
I suspect that many of them use Ecotect, which is a pretty good program for energy modeling. There might be more sophisticated programs that I am unaware of. For simple home design, you might do a search for HEED, although I think that is more California-centric. Also, do a search for Square 1 products....actually it may be www.squ1.com....they have lots of little free tools that you can use that relate to daylight and the thermal environment, etc.
Changes for LEED AP Candidates and LEED APs
When the Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI) takes over all aspects of the LEED Accredited Professional program in January, two changes will affect LEED AP candidates: exam scheduling will be unavailable between January 1 and January 10, 2008; and exam fees will increase by $50. Register by December 31, 2007 to be locked in at the 2007 rates of $250 for USGBC Members and $350 for non-members.
In case you missed it, GBCI is now the place to learn about LEED Professional Accreditation, register for the LEED AP Exam, find LEED Accredited Professionals in your area, access your LEED AP exam records, and manage your LEED AP Directory listing. USGBC will continue to manage the development of LEED and to provide related resources and educational offerings. Current LEED APs will not be affected by this change. If you have any questions, please contact exam@usgbc.org or visit GBCI for more information.
[url=http://www.archpaper.com/features/2007_CA06_consequences.htm]architecturenews[/url ] has an article finally worth reading. Sam Lubell chats with arup and others about the trade offs and compromises created by striving for a high performance building...
To maintain our standard of living, each person in the United States requires over 48,000 pounds of minerals each year:
* 12,428 lb. of stone
* 9,632 lb. of sand and gravel
* 940 lb. of cement
* 276 lb. of clays
* 400 lb. of salt
* 302 lb. phosphate rock
* 639 lb. of nonmetals
* 425 lb. of iron ore
* 77 lb. of bauxite (aluminum)
* 17 lb. of copper
* 11 lb. of lead
* 10 lb. of zinc
* 6 lb. of manganese
* .0285 T oz. gold
* 29 lb. of other metals
My buddy Dr. James Hansen (from NASA) is on Fresh Air with Terri Gross today. He's the one from the 2010 Imperative Web Cast last year. He's saying that the ice sheets in Greenland are now melting faster than the models show, among other things. You should check it out!
@ Sarah
I have used some of them, by Seventh Generation etc.
My experienc eis they clean ok, but are a bit expensive.
I would say if the price point is an issue go for some of the newer "regular" branded cleaners that are now selling condensed versions in smaller bottles without all the water/liquid..
on the detergent topic, we use ECOS. most likely at your local health food store or whole foods might carry it too. but i don't like them much. whole foods that is.
Ah, yes... that map of CO2 from cars around San Francisco is dramatic, that downtown is 20% less. But what about the principle that the unaccountable portion of our impacts is nearly always far larger than the accountable one, by 1000% or more usually.
People who live in big cities depend entirely on exporting their footprints around the globe, having other people do their energy consumption and environment depletion for them. It's an efficiency of one kind to live in high density, but the impact of needing to get more of your services from spending on goods that consume resources all over the world may turn it upside down... It's a question of whether SF's GDP/acre would would exceed that in the hills... What do you think? We need to start thinking of totals, and whether our changes add up to more or less.
phil- most americans rely on having a huge footprint. the suburbanites (who are a majority of this country) end up with a order of magnitude greater footprint then the urban dwelllers. how many folks with 1/4 acre lots and a three car garages grow their own food versus jumping in an suv to head to the supermarket 5 miles away? Just because the supply chain is more complex to reach the folks in the city cores, doesn't mean that they should be penalized.
Well, yes, but it seems the map is just talking about the 'accountable' portions, the energy use that's easy to see. The part that's hard to see, the part the economy does in our service, is likely to be 90% of our individual responsibility for energy use. What the map seems to shows is only a 20% difference in fuel use between urban and suburban, counting only 10% of either one's total. That implies just a 2% difference between the two lifestyles, not an 'order of magnitude' as the 'easy count' method makes it looks as if there would be.
It's not only that the map counts just the easily counted 10% of the energy use. It's also that the it shows a dark blue to red color difference for only a 20% change. Isn't that a little misleading? It portrays the visual impression that city people have no energy use when the likelihood is that they have only 2% less than people in the suburbs, or less than the margin of error! Then there's the other hidden problem that, everybody's energy use is steadily growing exponentially because of the exponentially growing economic services we require. We have totally messed up this movement you know.
There are the two components that need to be considered to accurately estimate either energy or CO2 responsibility. One it the econmic use of fuels (8000btu/$) and the other is the direct use of fuels (what you can identify and count). People don't like going into details so I just say to add the two for the best simple estimate. The suburban people will have more direct fuel use and the city dwellers will some have less and some more $ use.
Thanks, I was about to apologize for showing my frustration. Simple acknowledgements like yours of the gap between what we do and what we say we're doing are exceedingly rare. I go to the AIA often and write and talk with lots of people and I hear straight replies about as often as I see baby elephants.
There was one other I recall, at the EcoBuild conference in DC when I asked at the Green Globes meeting when we might plan on doing something about just multiplying our impacts more efficiently. A couple people in the audience said essentially chimed in "yea! what about that". It didn't get answered or discussed, of course. I even got it well presented to the fed sustainability lobbying roundtable. You could hear a pin drop, but no comments.
As we enter our third decade of work, we want to better understand your opinions as practitioners in the fields of sustainability, corporate responsibility and sustainable development. Knowing your views will not only help us refine our strategies and research plans, but also enable us to leverage those ideas with thought leaders in the business, media and NGO communities.
We would thus be indebted to you if you could take ten minutes to participate in this joint SustainAbility/GlobeScan research study by completing a short survey. Please be assured that your responses will remain completely anonymous. We will share the results with you once we have completed our analysis.
To proceed to the online survey, please click on the URL below:
USGBC has doubled its funding commitment for green building research grants to be awarded in 2008 to a grand total of $2 million. Of the additional $1 million in grants, $500,000 has been allocated for K-12 school facility research related to occupant impacts. Pre-proposal abstracts are being accepted from February 12 through March 6. Selected applicants will be asked to submit comprehensive proposals for the final phase of the selection process.
Please follow these Web links for additional details.
In the wake of what seem like major setbacks this month for agricultural biofuels and coal plant carbon sequesteration, is there anyone curious whether there might be more to come? It seems there's a larger pattern, suggesting an urgent need for retargeting and making these complicated choices with a little more care...
good point! plastic doesn't go away. just because we can't clean it up easily probably might not be the first thing to do us in, though. it's more likely our problem with math. i'm sort of wondering when we'll see that conserverd addition makes things larger, and so conserved multiplication probably does that too... maybe the thermostat just needs a coffee cup thrown from across the room to set it straight...?
On the plasticky naughty bits, here's a link to an abridged excerpt from Orion magazine of a book "The World Without Us" by Alan Weisman. For the researchers, can anyone verify the credibility of this?
Good book, Oysters....it's sitting on my nightstand. I've gotten through, oh, about 1.5 pages of it (if it were posted like a thread on Archinect, I probably would have finished it in a day ;o).
Quick question. Is there a website or list of companies out there that have green product lines, i.e. Bentley Prince for carpet, etc.? I could have sworn there was something like that on the USGBC website but at quick glance I couldn't find anything. Thanks.
tk, that's interesting, but after reading the news that they can't even rate the San Francisco Federal Building because it uses such advanced technology, I think maybe they need to refocus their efforts.
tunamelt, I would look here first, and if that doesn't help, look up the EPA's documents on Environmentally Preferable Purchasing, and do a search for SCS Certified products. You can go on the SCS web site and look up products by category - if they are SCS Certified, they are good to go.
I agree that the USGBC has fallen behind the eight ball with LEED - many of my comments as I reviewd GB08 abstracts were along that tack.
LEED approval can add 15 to 20 percent to upfront construction costs, although many of those costs are more than paid back over the life of the structure. Many developers simply don't have those resources.
well if the developers can't afford to build, then they won't build and the environment will be better off! This will make Phil happy if less projects get off the drawing board.
My head is spinning as I try to pull together a proposal for 107 stories of sustainable design ideas. At least I'm getting paid for this research and a chance to catch up....
oh, that quote above is from the New West Article about Mayne versus LEED.
From the USGBC's research paper:
... averaged nationally, a new office building built to the ASHRAE 90.1-2004 energy code will consume nearly 2.4 times as much energy per square foot for workers commuting to and from the building than the building itself consumes for operation. Should these findings be supported by more thorough peer reviewed research, there may be reason to give more weight to location- and transportation-related measures in the planning, siting, and design of green buildings— and in the priorities represented in green building rating systems.
at least the USGBC is starting to realize the impact of other factors outside the buildings.
Bethune underwent liposuction and donated enough to produce 100ml of biofuel, while two other, larger volunteers also had the procedure, making a total of 10 litres of human fat. This in turn produced seven litres of biofuel, which could help the boat travel about 15km.
i think I have some fat to contribute - its for a good cause honest. How much for internal organs? 20 km?/
Treekiller - I'm glad you answered...because I did wonder. I wasn't very trusting of the electrician that gave his answer. He sounded convincing but since I've had him on a few projects I know he can talk out of his ass.
My dilemma is that since I'm completely redoing my electrics I am aiming for it to be low consumption. Hopefully this will be tied in with me generating my own electricity but this remains to be seen since I will require a license to do so. Silly country.
I have a bunch of low energy bulbs that still have another 10 to 12 years left in them. Yes I keep tabs. But they are all 110/120 much unlike most of the homes here. I was just wondering if I should make the switch. Thoughts anyone?
if you want to live off the grid, consider a 12v (or 24v or 48v) DC system. Al PV panels generate DC and there are some losses associated with the AC inverter. DC wind turbines are common too.
The US is 110/120v, europe and some parts of asia are 220/240v. don't know what the islands infrastructure is. In the US you can get 240v on three phase circuits (don't ask me how this works) as used for some electric dryers, some central air conditioners, and industrial settings.
Grid tied systems require inverters, but you save by not having to invest in batteries. however you won't have the luxury of power when the grid goes down with out installing an even fancier control system.
I want to get a kill-a-watt meter to find out where my vampire loads are (and to convince my wife to turn off and unplug her computer).
I looked at the National Green Building Research Agenda Treekiller suggested, and found "achieving a transformative leap in building performance and sustainability" as their goal. I just came back from the AAAS meetings this weekend where there were a wide variety of wonderful studies showing fabulous new data and analysis, for a globally worsening environmental crisis, along with some hopeful collaboration methods and things. There was also growing recognition that science was never designed as an operating manual, particularly not for systems composed of many levels of independently designed and behaving parts...! There was also a beginning recognition that stabilizing atmospheric carbon, at any level, seems a rather unrealistic assumption at this point.
There was a emotional moment when an African environmental organizer asked the GIS expert for Africa what climate the tribes in her own region should organize to adapt to. He gave a long complicated answer with a lot of jargon about how hard they were working and how sincerely they wanted to give her the answer. He left his questioner totally confused. What he actually meant was "we have no idea and have no idea when we will", to be truthful. That's both because small changes in model assumptions may mean big local climate differences and our main assumptions about future GHG levels are now coming into question. The data widely differs from them. How the heck are people who need to change their whole cultures to adapt to wrenching climate change supposed to feel when the leading scientists they came all the way across the globe to hear from just tell them 'hold the phone' as an answer?? The real message, of course, is we're in big trouble and you should tell your government that science presently sees no way of solving it. The scientist himself is actually a very nice guy, but the real message should have been included in what he said.
The USGBC still seems to think we can beat this with transformative efficiency gains. They, like most others are not looking at the data that says efficiency gains are inherently a limited resource, and already running out, and that's the true reason energy use and carbon have only increased at accelerating rates as we've attempted to restrain them. It was the economists that put the assumption of infinite efficiencies that would get ever easier to adopt in our expectations. Now that's clearly not working. It's not widely discussed, but it's widely recognized that nothing is working. The plenary speeches at the conference were all still solidly hopeful of finding transformative technologies like the USGBC still holds out for, only rumblings in the crowd to the contrary...
It may still not be 'positive' enough for the home crowd, but it's better than some of my other stuff, so you might browse for whatever you find interesting in http://www.synapse9.com/issues/HDS-RetargetingPts.pdf
Hey remember the old 'newsnet' forum pages when anyone could start a thread and each thread had branches according to what post was responded to?
... so coming across the usual tossed around number that buildings produce half the CO2 for the US, I thought I'd check. Dan Williams in his new book Sustainable Design made it easy by publishing the figure in the form of a graph showing curves for the carbon produced by buildings, transport and industry, with a scale. I expect this same graph is the source everyone is using for it.
What it shows is buildings consuming 750 million metric tons of carbon in 2000, listing that as 48% of the total. US GDP in 2000 was $9,817 billion and the DOE's US carbon intensity in 2000$'s was .45kg/$. That means the US Economy produced 4,418million metric tons of carbon. Oops... we've been demoted, and off in our estimate of our own importance by, yep, 95% !!!!! The direct share of US carbon consumption for US buildings seems to be actually only 1.7%, not 48% as the chart showed. Now,... is someone going to finally check my figures? and then if I'm right, who the hell is going to tell who about that embarrassing fact I wonder? ;-)
Hmmmm. Phil, I'd call Dr. James Hansen, he'll get to the bottom of this (or try Al, he isn't that busy these days).
Phil, there are a few 'sectors' that the USGBC lumps together to get the 48% - the buildings themselves, most domestic electricity capacity, and the building materials industry. Once you look at where the coal is being burned (and what all those computers inside those offices burn) maybe it is, maybe it isn't 48%.
Green Thread Central
carbon consumption equalizes the playing field, but penalizes the emerging economies that haven't invested in high efficiency manufacturing methods - that may not be a bad thing, but will take some effort to overcome the resistance. the point of CHEVALIER in her nytimes column, is a simple carbon emissions tax has too many loop holes that penalize places where the tax is enforced and encourages places like china to keep up business as usual. So if the carbon consumption tax becomes a universal tariff (not that the WTO will approve this), it levels the playing field and doesn't allow cheaters to win.
Phil, its great to see your idea and presentation maturing. So are you submitting an abstract to greenbuild?
Barry,
I asked Peter Bennett, an economist who consults several congress persons on the subject, and he provided a key bit of information. If it's a tax it's treated differently in international law than if its a tariff. If a foreign country does not collect a fair tax on it's global environmental impacts then a trading country is free to collect it in lieu of their cooperation. It would not be legal to collect it as a tariff on their good though. ..I think I'm explaining it right..
Anyway, if China doesn't penalize carbon and we have a scientific way to measure it, we can apply a proportionate penalty to their imports. The key would be to make it competitively advantageous for businesses to individually be accurate in reporting their carbon, so people will have the most useful information for decision making. You could do that if the default for not submitting a verifiable accounting was to be charged the worst case presumption for people hiding their carbon.
The issue of balance between developing and developed countries can't be resolved until people realize we need the maximum feasible adaptive response from everyone. That may be realized when people see that the next bigger problem in our way is that all the long term efficiency curves are leveling off. That's the complete opposite of what everyone wants. They're all leveling off at the same time as our effort to find new efficiencies is increasing. Having efficiencies dramatically improving is an essential part of every major plan.
That fairly clearly indicates to me that the natural system (the real thing, not my or anyone else's model) is running out of new efficiencies. The key evidence is that the curves are exponential decay curves, what natural systems do when they're running out of things. I think I can explain some of why, but I don't really need to when what I'd be explaining is the simple fact that we are making buildings and the economies more efficient slower and slower, while planning on having them become more efficient faster and faster. What's happening and what we're planning on are just different.
As for conferences abstracts, it's all sort of a moving target. I guess I should inquire how to do that.
Best,
i've got a LEED question - anyone know what software their MEP engineers have used for daylighting and energy modelling?
get yer solar roof
Just read this interview
from we make money not art
and I thought some of their ideas were quite interesting. I was especially struck by the quote "THE EXM is as retarded as green capitalism." in regards to their theoretical Edible Excess Machine that would use the x-rays of an old TV to turn trash into edible food.
Worth a read. I don't think the ideas are necessarily new, but I think they are a good example of artists tackling issues that arise from the (hopefully) soon-to-be booming green economy, albeit on a conceptual level.
I see plenty of artists attacking the flaws and ironies that arise during the greening of America, but I wonder what role architects can play in bringing these pertinent issues to light? I know as architects we have the ability to "control" the built environment, but it seems as though that is not enough.
I haven't seen anyone post this elsewhere . . .
It was hard to notice with all the media attention about CAFE standards in the new energy bill, but it basically adopts the Architecture 2030 initiative, requiring all federal buildings to consume zero fossil-fuel based energy by 2030. It also requires the creation of a couple of offices within the federal government specifically focused on green building, and requires the adoption of a federal green building certification program.
It seems the USGBC has been in the trenches with the congressional offices helping draft this, doing a considerably better job at lobbying than the AIA . . .
laurilan, I didn't see your question the other day....
I suspect that many of them use Ecotect, which is a pretty good program for energy modeling. There might be more sophisticated programs that I am unaware of. For simple home design, you might do a search for HEED, although I think that is more California-centric. Also, do a search for Square 1 products....actually it may be www.squ1.com....they have lots of little free tools that you can use that relate to daylight and the thermal environment, etc.
Whoa! I screwed up that link through excessive use of ellipses.
www.squ1.com
That'll do it.
for Wonder K and the rest info energy producing fashion
ps. that is not me - my hair hasn't been that long since I was 16
fyi-
Changes for LEED AP Candidates and LEED APs
When the Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI) takes over all aspects of the LEED Accredited Professional program in January, two changes will affect LEED AP candidates: exam scheduling will be unavailable between January 1 and January 10, 2008; and exam fees will increase by $50. Register by December 31, 2007 to be locked in at the 2007 rates of $250 for USGBC Members and $350 for non-members.
In case you missed it, GBCI is now the place to learn about LEED Professional Accreditation, register for the LEED AP Exam, find LEED Accredited Professionals in your area, access your LEED AP exam records, and manage your LEED AP Directory listing. USGBC will continue to manage the development of LEED and to provide related resources and educational offerings. Current LEED APs will not be affected by this change. If you have any questions, please contact exam@usgbc.org or visit GBCI for more information.
[url=http://www.archpaper.com/features/2007_CA06_consequences.htm]architecturenews[/url ] has an article finally worth reading. Sam Lubell chats with arup and others about the trade offs and compromises created by striving for a high performance building...
thanks to worldchanging for these stats from the mineral information institute and the usgs:
To maintain our standard of living, each person in the United States requires over 48,000 pounds of minerals each year:
* 12,428 lb. of stone
* 9,632 lb. of sand and gravel
* 940 lb. of cement
* 276 lb. of clays
* 400 lb. of salt
* 302 lb. phosphate rock
* 639 lb. of nonmetals
* 425 lb. of iron ore
* 77 lb. of bauxite (aluminum)
* 17 lb. of copper
* 11 lb. of lead
* 10 lb. of zinc
* 6 lb. of manganese
* .0285 T oz. gold
* 29 lb. of other metals
Plus:
* 7,667 lb. petroleum
* 7,589 lb. coal
* 6,866 natural gas
* 1/3 lb. uranium
so what about immigrants?
Happy New Year!
My buddy Dr. James Hansen (from NASA) is on Fresh Air with Terri Gross today. He's the one from the 2010 Imperative Web Cast last year. He's saying that the ice sheets in Greenland are now melting faster than the models show, among other things. You should check it out!
Has anyone used any of the 'green' laundry detergent? Is it really as effective at stains and such as regular? How much more expensive is it?
@ Sarah
I have used some of them, by Seventh Generation etc.
My experienc eis they clean ok, but are a bit expensive.
I would say if the price point is an issue go for some of the newer "regular" branded cleaners that are now selling condensed versions in smaller bottles without all the water/liquid..
the federal trade commission is looking into green washing.
NYtimes
its about time to crack the whip at folks making unjustified claims!
another piece from the times: Compact Fluorescents.
Read it Here.
on the detergent topic, we use ECOS. most likely at your local health food store or whole foods might carry it too. but i don't like them much. whole foods that is.
works for us.
I have also used ECOS...
featured in popular science - break through award winner.
thanks to worldchanging
or why we should all live in the city...
Nice graphic..As you said shows why public transportation and density are a must going towards the future
Ah, yes... that map of CO2 from cars around San Francisco is dramatic, that downtown is 20% less. But what about the principle that the unaccountable portion of our impacts is nearly always far larger than the accountable one, by 1000% or more usually.
People who live in big cities depend entirely on exporting their footprints around the globe, having other people do their energy consumption and environment depletion for them. It's an efficiency of one kind to live in high density, but the impact of needing to get more of your services from spending on goods that consume resources all over the world may turn it upside down... It's a question of whether SF's GDP/acre would would exceed that in the hills... What do you think? We need to start thinking of totals, and whether our changes add up to more or less.
phil- most americans rely on having a huge footprint. the suburbanites (who are a majority of this country) end up with a order of magnitude greater footprint then the urban dwelllers. how many folks with 1/4 acre lots and a three car garages grow their own food versus jumping in an suv to head to the supermarket 5 miles away? Just because the supply chain is more complex to reach the folks in the city cores, doesn't mean that they should be penalized.
Well, yes, but it seems the map is just talking about the 'accountable' portions, the energy use that's easy to see. The part that's hard to see, the part the economy does in our service, is likely to be 90% of our individual responsibility for energy use. What the map seems to shows is only a 20% difference in fuel use between urban and suburban, counting only 10% of either one's total. That implies just a 2% difference between the two lifestyles, not an 'order of magnitude' as the 'easy count' method makes it looks as if there would be.
It's not only that the map counts just the easily counted 10% of the energy use. It's also that the it shows a dark blue to red color difference for only a 20% change. Isn't that a little misleading? It portrays the visual impression that city people have no energy use when the likelihood is that they have only 2% less than people in the suburbs, or less than the margin of error! Then there's the other hidden problem that, everybody's energy use is steadily growing exponentially because of the exponentially growing economic services we require. We have totally messed up this movement you know.
There are the two components that need to be considered to accurately estimate either energy or CO2 responsibility. One it the econmic use of fuels (8000btu/$) and the other is the direct use of fuels (what you can identify and count). People don't like going into details so I just say to add the two for the best simple estimate. The suburban people will have more direct fuel use and the city dwellers will some have less and some more $ use.
It's a problem...! ;-\
phil - good points.
Thanks, I was about to apologize for showing my frustration. Simple acknowledgements like yours of the gap between what we do and what we say we're doing are exceedingly rare. I go to the AIA often and write and talk with lots of people and I hear straight replies about as often as I see baby elephants.
There was one other I recall, at the EcoBuild conference in DC when I asked at the Green Globes meeting when we might plan on doing something about just multiplying our impacts more efficiently. A couple people in the audience said essentially chimed in "yea! what about that". It didn't get answered or discussed, of course. I even got it well presented to the fed sustainability lobbying roundtable. You could hear a pin drop, but no comments.
thanks to Kira Gould for sharing this with COTE:
Dear Colleagues:
As we enter our third decade of work, we want to better understand your opinions as practitioners in the fields of sustainability, corporate responsibility and sustainable development. Knowing your views will not only help us refine our strategies and research plans, but also enable us to leverage those ideas with thought leaders in the business, media and NGO communities.
We would thus be indebted to you if you could take ten minutes to participate in this joint SustainAbility/GlobeScan research study by completing a short survey. Please be assured that your responses will remain completely anonymous. We will share the results with you once we have completed our analysis.
To proceed to the online survey, please click on the URL below:
SURVEY
With great appreciation,
John Elkington, Founder & Chief Entreprenuer
Mark Lee, Chief Executive Officer
Am i a sustainability expert?
I answered the questions..
USGBC has doubled its funding commitment for green building research grants to be awarded in 2008 to a grand total of $2 million. Of the additional $1 million in grants, $500,000 has been allocated for K-12 school facility research related to occupant impacts. Pre-proposal abstracts are being accepted from February 12 through March 6. Selected applicants will be asked to submit comprehensive proposals for the final phase of the selection process.
Please follow these Web links for additional details.
News Release:
USGBC Commits Additional $1 Million to Fund Green Building Research, Requests Proposals. http://www.usgbc.org/News/PressReleaseDetails.aspx?ID=3584
Request for Pre-Proposals:
http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/News/ResearchFund_RFPP_Feb4.pdf
In the wake of what seem like major setbacks this month for agricultural biofuels and coal plant carbon sequesteration, is there anyone curious whether there might be more to come? It seems there's a larger pattern, suggesting an urgent need for retargeting and making these complicated choices with a little more care...
http://www.synapse9.com/issues/HDS-RetargetingPts.pdf
We're talking about the [url=
giant]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnUjTHB1lvM]giant heap of plastic floating around in the Pacific[/url] on Thread Central. Thought I might repost it here.....
crap!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnUjTHB1lvM
^ Just click that. Thanks. :o)
good point! plastic doesn't go away. just because we can't clean it up easily probably might not be the first thing to do us in, though. it's more likely our problem with math. i'm sort of wondering when we'll see that conserverd addition makes things larger, and so conserved multiplication probably does that too... maybe the thermostat just needs a coffee cup thrown from across the room to set it straight...?
On the plasticky naughty bits, here's a link to an abridged excerpt from Orion magazine of a book "The World Without Us" by Alan Weisman. For the researchers, can anyone verify the credibility of this?
Good book, Oysters....it's sitting on my nightstand. I've gotten through, oh, about 1.5 pages of it (if it were posted like a thread on Archinect, I probably would have finished it in a day ;o).
scary stuff about plastic bags here.
graphic:
Quick question. Is there a website or list of companies out there that have green product lines, i.e. Bentley Prince for carpet, etc.? I could have sworn there was something like that on the USGBC website but at quick glance I couldn't find anything. Thanks.
Just came across the USGBC's National Green Building Research Agenda. Anybody else see this before (it was released in November 2007)? Any thoughts?
tk, that's interesting, but after reading the news that they can't even rate the San Francisco Federal Building because it uses such advanced technology, I think maybe they need to refocus their efforts.
tunamelt, I would look here first, and if that doesn't help, look up the EPA's documents on Environmentally Preferable Purchasing, and do a search for SCS Certified products. You can go on the SCS web site and look up products by category - if they are SCS Certified, they are good to go.
I agree that the USGBC has fallen behind the eight ball with LEED - many of my comments as I reviewd GB08 abstracts were along that tack.
LEED approval can add 15 to 20 percent to upfront construction costs, although many of those costs are more than paid back over the life of the structure. Many developers simply don't have those resources.
well if the developers can't afford to build, then they won't build and the environment will be better off! This will make Phil happy if less projects get off the drawing board.
My head is spinning as I try to pull together a proposal for 107 stories of sustainable design ideas. At least I'm getting paid for this research and a chance to catch up....
oh, that quote above is from the New West Article about Mayne versus LEED.
From the USGBC's research paper:
... averaged nationally, a new office building built to the ASHRAE 90.1-2004 energy code will consume nearly 2.4 times as much energy per square foot for workers commuting to and from the building than the building itself consumes for operation. Should these findings be supported by more thorough peer reviewed research, there may be reason to give more weight to location- and transportation-related measures in the planning, siting, and design of green buildings— and in the priorities represented in green building rating systems.
at least the USGBC is starting to realize the impact of other factors outside the buildings.
i have a question that I must admit I didn't have the right answer to.
Is using 220v cheaper than 110v?
a watt is a watt is a watt.
20 amps at 110v is equal to 10amps at 220v = 2200 watts.
Bigger wires are needed for 220v, along with bigger switches, fuses, and breakers - so 220 is marginally more $$$. and it can kill you quicker!
just came across the grossest alternate energy source:
liposuction based bio-diesel.... ewwwww!
from the daily mail
Bethune underwent liposuction and donated enough to produce 100ml of biofuel, while two other, larger volunteers also had the procedure, making a total of 10 litres of human fat. This in turn produced seven litres of biofuel, which could help the boat travel about 15km.
ewwwwwwww!
i think I have some fat to contribute - its for a good cause honest. How much for internal organs? 20 km?/
Treekiller - I'm glad you answered...because I did wonder. I wasn't very trusting of the electrician that gave his answer. He sounded convincing but since I've had him on a few projects I know he can talk out of his ass.
My dilemma is that since I'm completely redoing my electrics I am aiming for it to be low consumption. Hopefully this will be tied in with me generating my own electricity but this remains to be seen since I will require a license to do so. Silly country.
I have a bunch of low energy bulbs that still have another 10 to 12 years left in them. Yes I keep tabs. But they are all 110/120 much unlike most of the homes here. I was just wondering if I should make the switch. Thoughts anyone?
a-
if you want to live off the grid, consider a 12v (or 24v or 48v) DC system. Al PV panels generate DC and there are some losses associated with the AC inverter. DC wind turbines are common too.
The US is 110/120v, europe and some parts of asia are 220/240v. don't know what the islands infrastructure is. In the US you can get 240v on three phase circuits (don't ask me how this works) as used for some electric dryers, some central air conditioners, and industrial settings.
Grid tied systems require inverters, but you save by not having to invest in batteries. however you won't have the luxury of power when the grid goes down with out installing an even fancier control system.
I want to get a kill-a-watt meter to find out where my vampire loads are (and to convince my wife to turn off and unplug her computer).
I looked at the National Green Building Research Agenda Treekiller suggested, and found "achieving a transformative leap in building performance and sustainability" as their goal. I just came back from the AAAS meetings this weekend where there were a wide variety of wonderful studies showing fabulous new data and analysis, for a globally worsening environmental crisis, along with some hopeful collaboration methods and things. There was also growing recognition that science was never designed as an operating manual, particularly not for systems composed of many levels of independently designed and behaving parts...! There was also a beginning recognition that stabilizing atmospheric carbon, at any level, seems a rather unrealistic assumption at this point.
There was a emotional moment when an African environmental organizer asked the GIS expert for Africa what climate the tribes in her own region should organize to adapt to. He gave a long complicated answer with a lot of jargon about how hard they were working and how sincerely they wanted to give her the answer. He left his questioner totally confused. What he actually meant was "we have no idea and have no idea when we will", to be truthful. That's both because small changes in model assumptions may mean big local climate differences and our main assumptions about future GHG levels are now coming into question. The data widely differs from them. How the heck are people who need to change their whole cultures to adapt to wrenching climate change supposed to feel when the leading scientists they came all the way across the globe to hear from just tell them 'hold the phone' as an answer?? The real message, of course, is we're in big trouble and you should tell your government that science presently sees no way of solving it. The scientist himself is actually a very nice guy, but the real message should have been included in what he said.
The USGBC still seems to think we can beat this with transformative efficiency gains. They, like most others are not looking at the data that says efficiency gains are inherently a limited resource, and already running out, and that's the true reason energy use and carbon have only increased at accelerating rates as we've attempted to restrain them. It was the economists that put the assumption of infinite efficiencies that would get ever easier to adopt in our expectations. Now that's clearly not working. It's not widely discussed, but it's widely recognized that nothing is working. The plenary speeches at the conference were all still solidly hopeful of finding transformative technologies like the USGBC still holds out for, only rumblings in the crowd to the contrary...
It may still not be 'positive' enough for the home crowd, but it's better than some of my other stuff, so you might browse for whatever you find interesting in http://www.synapse9.com/issues/HDS-RetargetingPts.pdf
has gone green. wK, pH and others, come and join the discussion of sustainable infrastructure and land use efficiency...
or do we need to start an sustainable infrastructure thread?
Hey remember the old 'newsnet' forum pages when anyone could start a thread and each thread had branches according to what post was responded to?
... so coming across the usual tossed around number that buildings produce half the CO2 for the US, I thought I'd check. Dan Williams in his new book Sustainable Design made it easy by publishing the figure in the form of a graph showing curves for the carbon produced by buildings, transport and industry, with a scale. I expect this same graph is the source everyone is using for it.
What it shows is buildings consuming 750 million metric tons of carbon in 2000, listing that as 48% of the total. US GDP in 2000 was $9,817 billion and the DOE's US carbon intensity in 2000$'s was .45kg/$. That means the US Economy produced 4,418million metric tons of carbon. Oops... we've been demoted, and off in our estimate of our own importance by, yep, 95% !!!!! The direct share of US carbon consumption for US buildings seems to be actually only 1.7%, not 48% as the chart showed. Now,... is someone going to finally check my figures? and then if I'm right, who the hell is going to tell who about that embarrassing fact I wonder? ;-)
Hmmmm. Phil, I'd call Dr. James Hansen, he'll get to the bottom of this (or try Al, he isn't that busy these days).
Phil, there are a few 'sectors' that the USGBC lumps together to get the 48% - the buildings themselves, most domestic electricity capacity, and the building materials industry. Once you look at where the coal is being burned (and what all those computers inside those offices burn) maybe it is, maybe it isn't 48%.
good luck solving this.
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.