Sometimes We Forget

Sometimes, I think we forget what we're talking about when it comes to the sustainability movement. Even the ardent professionals among us who try everyday to help the world's people consume a little less or those trying to make the products and services that can create a better, more resourceful world, even the most globally conscious among us...they too sometimes forget what it is we're really talking about when we say "sustainability."

We're not talking about anything less than the advancement of human civilization. I know that sounds a little ridiculous, but it's absolutely true. I would never pretend to know what political turmoil will come next or what piece of art will move the culture.  But I do know none of that advancement will take place without a powerful movement toward sustainability. There are simply more and more people on the planet competeing for the same number of resources. So if we do not rapidly change the way people consume and create those resources, we will not advance as a global civilization. Everything we do as modern people consumes energy: moving from place to place, writing our next piece of research, listening to music. Every bit of that requires energy and we don't know where we're going to get it all.

Buildings are no small part of that struggle. When taken together all sectors of existing buildings use 48% of the energy consumed in America, according to the folks at Architecture 2030. So the built environment is half of the energy crisis, half of the problem. As building professionals, when we tackle a problem like that--a problem so large--we aren't just making things better for our client, we are advancing civilization.

The ancient Romans gave us infrastructure, the very idea that we could alter the earth and move its resources from place to place. Water, earth, grain: the idea that not only could these resources be stored, but shared between areas of plenty and areas of want was given to us by that flawed empire. The British gave us the first hint of globalization; the idea that products and services and government could actually function over vast distances. I've skipped over whole swaths of history and culture, but I ask you, what will our age be known for? We can be the people that usher in an age of unbridled ideas and instant communication, the people who not only created vast wealth, but were able to remake the way we used natural resources and became harmonious with the Earth. The power to create that age is within all of us...that's what we work toward everyday when we talk about sustainability. 

Revolution Part II: The Politics of Sustainability

In part one of this series I mentioned the notion that what we need is a paradigm shift in our culture. When we look at our needs for water, food, energy and land in the next century, "small ball" movements will not get us there. We have to reassess the value of these resources in economic terms and bring those terms to market. Politically that can mean cap and trade. But the private sector needs to enact this change in thought now and there are several industries which can act as a catalyst for larger systemic change.

The thing is...selling those who are passionate about sustainability and environmentalism isn't enough. We need to engage those outside of that market and embrace the broader population. When we think of the nation's avatars for sustainability, ex Democratic politicians spring to mind. People like Al Gore and President Carter have fought throughout their ex-White House careers to stop global warming. While the natural instinct is to turn these men, Al Gore in particular, into the face of environmental change-the model is fundamentally flawed. Al Gore represents a political figure not to be trusted by 49% of Americans. In a deeply polarized nation we would do well not to imbue the fight for sustainability with politics but rather common sense. The nation simply cannot rest the hopes for sustainability on the backs of the Democratic party. The weight of day-to-day governance will burden them down, and the nature of our politics is give and take. It's deal making and when it comes to our energy crisis and the threats of global climate change. Compromise simply won't do.

Progress toward sustainability will be acheived when the business community recognizes the value in it. While many companies already are, many have failed to see how their business can be made more sustainable. That's where the business case for sustainability becomes so important. Whether you're a treehugger or not, we can all agree with saving money. Finding the business case for alternative energy, alternative transportation, or sustainable renovation is in all of our grasp. It's time to take the concepts of sustainbility and fuse them into American industry. I believe the building industry can lead the way. Sustainabilty cannot be seen as a cost... but rather an investment. It needs to be seen as buying a future. No where is that more apparent than the built space. But it's not simply enough to outline the economic benefits of sustainable building or in our case, sustainable renovation. We need to bring this concept to people's daily lives in a way that is valuable and tangible. Getting people to actively think about the spaces they occupy everyday outside of their homes. Solid capitalism thrives on effeiciency. Yet when it comes to energy and natural resources we allow our businesses to fall behind. In the race against China and India for the economy of tomorrow we are losing. This might be a friendly race, but it's a race we must stay competitive in for the future of our children. Think of what kind of a competitive advantage it will be for our kids if they never have to worry about the electric bill, or if they can get to work on inexpensive high speed rail, or if while the rest of the world is struggling to move away from oil and coal, we are already past it-our economy booming providing goods and services while the rest of the world fights through growing pains. America can be a leader in this market, but we need all hands on deck. The next powerpoint I see from a major figure on sustainability shouldn't be about the polar ice caps (though I recognize their importance), it should be about bending the cost curve of energy for American business.

The Revolution? #1

I follow lots of green and sustainable folks on twitter. I read lots of blogs and I check in on linkedin groups and attend conferences. I feel like I'm pretty well versed in the green building space and something keeps coming to me over and over again when I think about our culture and the "green" movement. As a whole we're not undergoing a revolution and we probably never will. That doesn't have to be a bad thing, a paradigm shift in thinking often doesn't lead to a revolution that can be televised. This is the first of a multi-part series of posts here at build2sustain, designed to outline our thinking on the culture of sustainability and how is folds neatly (and sometimes not so neatly) into American values and what we can do in the building and real estate development industries to make sustainable design and building part of our culture. Much of what you are about to read is an amalgamation of thoughts combined in my brain over the past few years of following the sustainable design movement. These thoughts owe as much to Jim Collins, Malcolm Gladwell and Andrew Bacevich as they do to William McDonough, Michael Braungart, and Janine Benyus. I don't think I've quoted any of them directly here, if I have, my sincere apologies. This isn't meant to be a book, a thesis or even a white paper. This is still our blog and discussion is always encouraged.

Part 1-How we got here, a history in (very) brief.

Here's the bottom line, our culture became unsustainable because political and economic conditions were created that allowed us to forget the true cost of the assets we were using. The obvious and glaring example is of course energy. From the boom after WWII thru to the present day, with the exception of the oil shocks of the 70's we lived in an age of unfettered access to cheap energy. That energy comes in the form of oil and coal mostly, and we are still to this day consuming these resources at rates that are growing...not shrinking. We built entire cultural and societal systems around commodities that could be accessed quickly and brought to market equally quickly. Cheap sources of energy and resources led to cheap consumer goods. Simple convienence coupled with lack of expense led us to a consumer culture where there was little to no consequence for using the earth's resources. It's not that people are greedy or don't care about the Earth. It's that as an economy and a system of wealth we assign value to resources by giving a resource, service, product, or commodity a market value. By essentially rigging the system, we artificially devalued energy, water and land, a culture locked in the short term thinking that these resources were limitless. We are beginning to understand not only that the use of these resources lead to extraordinary negative effects in the short, medium, and long terms but that the resources in question are actually quite limited when other major powers (yes, China and India) come online and compete for them.

Once you have created a paradigm around central commodities like water and energy, there are consequences across the culture. We use paper towels instead of cloth rags, disposable diapers instead of cloth ones, we wash our sidewalks with hoses instead of brooms, we mow our lawns with gas mowers instead push ones. We drive big SUVs we don't need.

The trouble is that this paradigm reached upwards into industries that are supposed to think long term. It reached into the building industry and into our real estate development industry. We forgot how to conserve resources, because we all drank the cultural koolaid and forgot that land, water, and energy are actually quite valuable. There was a time when the built environment actually attempted to conserve energy, retain heat in the winter and stay cool in the summer through passive design, not by simply burning energy to force artifically cooled and warmed air into every sprawling spaces.

I am of the firm belief that until our cultural institutions, both in the public and private sectors assign real value to the land, energy and water, we will not accomplish anything close to the paradigm shift necessary to achieve sustainability in the US. The thought that we aren't innovative enough, or disciplined enough to save energy is completely false. The reason we haven't made better choices for the planet and for each other is because the game we play every day isn't rigged for us to do so. The trouble is we are still, unfortunately locked into the same short term thinking that led us into this mess. Most of the players the "green" market don't want a paradigm shift. They want to play at the margins while someone else sacrifices. It's not that there aren't companies and individuals out there working to make a difference. It's that we haven't created a societal climate capable of instilling long term change.

My next post will delve into how the building industry can be an engine for change across the US culture.

 

New York State Builds The Case for Build2Sustain

Ok, so not literally or purposefully. But, the New York State government released a draft of their 2009 State Energy Plan today that outlines their objectives and strategies for the future. As I was reading, I found that they have written an argument for why B2S needs to exist. Here are some of the sections that I found particularly interesting (emphasis ours):

"The 2008 Optimal Report concluded that opportunities for electricity end-use efficiency in New York are extensive and inexpensive compared with available supply options. Results of the study estimate the State’s achievable potential through 2015 to be about 26,000 GWh, representing a reduction of approximately 14 percent from the forecast of electricity demand in 2015. In addition, improved building codes and appliance standards, likely to be implemented prior to 2015, could provide a reduction of an additional 11,000 GWh (5.7 percent) from the forecasted electricity use....The benefit-cost ratio of the electric efficiency measures is estimated to be 2.60, which means that the New York economy would capture approximately $2.60 in benefits for every dollar invested in efficiency."

"The 2008 Optimal Study attributes 38 percent (9,824 GWh) of the statewide achievable potential to New York City, 14 percent (3,603 GWh) to Long Island, and the remaining 48 percent (12,573 GWh) to the rest of the State. Approximately 70 percent of the total achievable potential savings in 2015 would be in the commercial sector, 17 percent would be in the residential sector, including low-income programs, and 13 percent would be in the industrial sector."

"Similarly, the end-uses with the greatest efficiency potential for the commercial sector are indoor lighting, cooling, ventilation, and refrigeration. Within the commercial sector, the study concludes that the building type with the greatest energy savings potential is office space, which accounts for 33 percent of the efficiency savings opportunities."

So with all these stats and the state looking to improve efficiency through new and existing programs and improved building codes, why do we still need Build2Sustain to develop best practices and convince developers, owners, and tenants that they will benefit from doing a whole scale renovation? Won't they be forced to with these new codes?

"New York's Energy Code applies to a building renovation only if the renovation is “substantial,” i.e., it involves replacement of more than 50 percent of any building subsystem. This “50 percent rule” currently provides owners of existing buildings opportunities to avoid application of the Energy Code by breaking building renovations into separate projects with no single project involving the replacement of more than 50 percent of any building subsystem. In turn, this reduces the State's opportunity to use the Energy Code to achieve improved energy efficiency in existing buildings. While the Energy Code applies to all new construction, the number of new buildings constructed annually is typically dwarfed by the number of existing buildings being renovated, particularly in urban areas, such as New York City. Therefore, the 50 percent rule significantly limits the State‟s ability to use the Energy Code to achieve an overall improvement the energy efficiency of buildings."

Now, who wants to join us?