18 quadrillion (or, these stats will blow your mind)

We're gearing up over here for a major go-to-market initiative. Part of that effort has been researching the impact of the commericial sector when it comes to energy use. I came across a fantastic white paper put out by the Center for Sustainable Systems out of the University of Michigan. I love reports like this one, because they are easily accessible no matter what your level of knowledge about the built environment. I encourage you to download the paper, and give it a read. But in the mean time, here are some amazing stats for the report...

In 2005, the commercial sector consumed 18 quadrillion BTUs of primary energy – a 65% increase over 1980 levels.

Lighting and indoor climate control consumed 50% of commercial sector primary energy in 2006

In 1996, construction, renovation and demolition of non-residential buildings generated 77.4 million tons of waste.  This amounts to 1.6 lbs per capita per day – compared to 4.3 lbs per capita per day from municipal solid waste.

There's a ton more to find in the report. Go check it out.

Have a great weekend.

A Look Back at May

We admit we've been putting out less blog posts lately than in the past.  But that's only because we're busy working on paperwork to get our Paper Project off the ground.  Still, we try to put forth as much quality content as possible.  Here are some of the things that resonated with our readers this month:

1) The Battle for Our Green Souls - Who in the sustainability space could help but be captivated by the lively discussion between The Good Human and Sustainable Brands 2010?  In this post, we outlined the arguments and gave our take.

2) Thrilla in Manilla: The Battle for a Sustainable Culture - What can we say? Battles seem popular this month.  This is actually an older post from February that has been picking up steam about how having two sides of the sustainability debate butting heads can actually be good for us.

3) Sustainable Risk Management - Advisory Board member, Chris Hill, explains as only he can the issues around risk management.

4) Achieving Energy Efficiency Goals: Who Has the Responsibility? - My take on the role governments and individuals play in achieving energy efficiency goals.

We've also had a wonderful month on the podcast front with two new, exciting episodes.

First this month was Julie Urlaub from Taiga Company.  We talked Sustainability with her, particularly through the lens of business.

Then, we spoke with Paul Prosser of Prosser Architects about Adaptive Reuse in Green Building.

Excited to hear more sustainability discussions? Subscribe to our podcast via iTunes, and you'll never miss a beat. 

Happy Memorial Day!  Please remember all our heroes that gave their lives for our freedom.

The Battle for our Green Souls - The Good Human Versus Sustainable Brands 2010

Recently something of a war of words has broken out between the folks at Sustainable Brands (SB) and the blog The Good Human (TGH). The Good Human (a gentleman named David) launched the first volley in this battle with the post Greenwash of the Week: Sustainable Brands 2010. The post outlined the series of large companies that are taking part in (sponsoring, attending, speaking) SB10, many of which have questionable environmental records (to say the least). Highlighting companies like Walmart, Nestle, and Clorox (and pointing out their litanies of environmental and social failures), TGH accuses not only the companies but the conference itself of being nothing more than a major greenwashing scheme. 

From the GHG post :

What do you get when a bunch of unsustainable companies pay a lot of money to become sponsors/attendees of an upcoming event called Sustainable Brands? You get a massive greenwashing event where “real” sustainable brands like the Monterey Bay Aquarium, Interface Americas, Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Living Homes, and the Environmental Defense Fund get mixed in with some the world’s most unsustainable companies...

The scathing facts (you really should go read them) presented about some of the most prominent sponsors of SB10 clearly raised some hackles with the folks of Sustainable Brands. Then the war of words was on...

Both on twitter and in the comment section of the TGH post a defense of the conference and the participants was mounted from KoAnn Vikoren Skrzyniarz...

The challenge, though, is that they can feel stuck to a degree, between a rock and a hard place. For businesses who are in existence to server customer and other stakeholder demands, require support from customers and other stakeholders to empower them. When customers buy more eco-friendly products, rather than the cheapest ones on the shelf, I guarantee you business will respond. They need NGOs working WITH them instead of against them to help them solve the many, many thorny systems challenges they face. They need support from media encouraging GOOD behavior and helping educate them about emerging best practices, rather than tearing them down and making them feel guilty for their imperfections.
Organizations are like people — they often need both the carrot and the stick to stay on the straight and narrow. I believe we all have our own roles to play in helping drive the shift we both seek, and someone needs to be the watchdog. While I have a hard time understanding how you are not able to respect our mission that is 100% parallel to your own, perhaps it’s as simple that we seek to serve two different roles. Perhaps you see yours as to meet out discipline, hold feet to the fire, whereas we see ours as to be a bridge to better brands – to believe the best in those businesses who come to us looking to learn, to encourage, support and amplify ‘right behavior’ and to help them more quickly innovate in response to our multitude global challenges..

Just part of the Twitter DebateThe comments and re-comments and barbs and tweets and challenges lasted through the evening. Sadly, TGH and SB talked past each other for the most of the discussion. To boil down TGH's argument the conference is called 'Sustainable Brands' and should be a celebration of businesses who are truly doing the right thing. Not a place for multi-nationals to greenwash by riding truly green companies' coat tails. The point from SB10 is that all of the businesses in the conference are on a continuum. While some are deeper green and more fully sustainable, others are working toward bettering themselves and should be rewarded for such initiatives. Every sponsor or participant's  record might not be perfect, but bigger companies have a lot more to change and have much harder job doing so while keeping their shareholders happy. If we want brands to stay in the sustainable space, we need to give them a chance to tout the good work they do.

Tweet, Tweet, Tweet, Fight, Fight, FightFor both full disclosure and for some perspective, let me tell you a little about B2S' involvement with SB09.  Last year, Build2Sustain participated in the conference as part of the New Ventures Exchange. The conference was nothing if not a learning experience. While there were some deep green companies in attendance, folks I deeply respect arrived both to speak and to discuss their companies, there's also an awful lot of greenwashing going on. Simply by virtue of the fact that all these companies are in the same place, it raises green street cred of companies that otherwise might not have been seen as sustainable. While it's great for Clorox to talk about their sustainability initiative, an environment like SB takes these efforts out of context. Seeing Clorox's presence at SB makes it easy to forget their larger operations; their work sounds amazing and truly world-changing, but must always be balanced against Clorox's larger impact on the planet. I believe the organizers of the conference, the folks at Sustainable Life Media, are well intentioned and are trying to bring about change through the established corporate channels. This results in a conference that brings together a "big tent" of companies, who (if taken at their word) care about sustainability and the planet in general. You have to take those good intentions with the greenwash, that's just the price of admission.

For folks like TGH and his readers, this simply isn't enough. For them sustainability is something akin to a religion, the belief system is clear and doing what's right for the planet is paramount to all other concerns. Ideas like competitive pricing, broad affordability of products, or brand recognition or even profit itself are secondary to doing what is right for the planet at all times. There is a sense that tough business decisions are simply not tough for folks like him. Planet first, period. But this measure adds up to something of an ideological purity test, one in which any measure of mediation is seen as a crime against the movement for a better planet.

To me this debate presents a false choice, both sides defining 'sustainable' on very different terms, when neither is sufficient.

For the folks at SB being a "green" company isn't itself sustainable without profit, and if we greenwash a little (or a lot) around the edges to blur the line between real green and fake green...well so be it.

Yet I find TGH equally disturbing. Bottom line: every product and every service we as humans provide for one another likely harms the planet to some degree. While there is validity in calling out greenwashing where you see it, and holding companies accountable for the damage they might be doing, there is little validity in conducting holier-than-thou purity tests. It's one thing to call out a corporation for greenwashing...it's another to tear down a gathering like SB for not promoting your brand of corporate sustainability. Fact is, a TGH conference wouldn't have many attendees. Do I wish the corporate world could turn on a dime and operate the way TGH would like to see it? Surely. Do I think that's possible? Not likely. How do we mitigate?

Perhaps a podcast is in order?

UPDATE: KoAnn recently posted a response to the TGH flap on her blog. An except is posted below, you can find the whole thing here.

I'm flattered that at least some corner of the world sees the Sustainable Brands event, and the team at Sustainable Life Media, as ideal to serve as arbiters of where the line is between a 'sustainable, and 'unsustainable' company.  The trouble is, this is not our mission.  Our mission is "To Be A Bridge to Better Brands" -- to help spread the most progressive ideas for getting us out of the unsustainable, 'business as usual' state that we're in, and on to a better business and brand future.  The fact is, it is precisely our intention to 'mix in those 'real' sustainable brands (what we like to call 'bonfire' brands in honor of one of our closest advisors and friends, Duke Stump), with the growing cross section of global brands who are working hard to tackle complex, ingrained problems so that business can become an institution providing a net benefit to society...

... suppose its possible that there may be some place for cynicism, but not at Sustainable Life Media.  And frankly, while we all agree healthy skepticism is, well, just that -- healthy, I'm not sure I for one have ever seen anything profitable or productive result from cynic.  At Sustainable Life Media we are interested in progress -- and in working together toward it with anyone who will come along side us.   This is why the theme of the conference this year resonates for us so much:  there is enormous power in AND verses OR.

Changing Into a Sustainable Community

Advisory Board member, Rich Cartilidge weighs in with his thoughts on community wide change today.  You can find out more about Rich on the B2S team page.

Today’s post should make the New Yorkers in the group feel happy and cause the rest of us to question what can be done to make our communities healthier, more connected, and pedestrian friendly. I live in downtown Tampa, Florida and am able to walk to several excellent restaurants. However, I live one mile from my office and am unable to walk there due to the lack of pedestrian friendly facilities and the downright awful driving of the locals. How many of you are able to walk or bike to your place of employment, your local supermarket, or a good restaurant? My guess is the answer is very few of you are able to do so. So how do we go about making the changes to our communities which facilitate a sustainable lifestyle? Unfortunately, in today’s age of strained state and local budgets the financing to make the necessary changes is difficult to come by, but if we do not start planning now, the chance to make the changes in the future will surely pass us by. 

      A prime example of how to create a better future by taking action today can be found in the example being employed by Fairfax, Virginia. The plan developed by Fairfax County seeks to reverse the detrimental impacts of the last 50 years of urban sprawl and to create an environment where individuals are able to live, work, and play without the need to rely on their automobiles. The plan will create a network of interconnected streets with wide well lit sidewalks and pedestrian friendly intersections and will convert struggling strip malls into sustainable city neighborhoods. Does your community have a similar plan?



Linking Historic Preservation With Green Building

When I think of sustainability, part of what I think of are quality structures that will be used for generations.  Historic buildings to me are a good example of that kind of durability, though in the past there was debate here at Build2Sustain over whether the Coliseum should be considered sustainable. So, isn't there a natural alignment between historic preservation and sustainable renovation?  Sure, the historic aspects and the regulations around renovating a historic building can present challenges, but surely there must be a way to preserve the features of a building that makes them special historically while updating the technology and materials to make it a high performing building.  John M. Tess of the Heritage Consulting Group writes an interesting piece about this very topic, highlighting successful projects that were able to attain both historic preservation and green building credits (and reap the rewards of tax benefits in the process).  One of the projects highlighted is the Oregon National Guard Armory Annex pictured left.  In the end, by using the resources and abilities we have now to help these buildings perform better, we ensure their survival for many generations to come--and isn't that the very point of historic preservation? 

Thrilla in Manilla: The Battle For a Sustainable Culture

In 1975, the third chapter of the greatest rivalry in the heavyweight boxing history played out in the Phillipines. Muhammed Ali met Joe Frazier for their final battle. The bout lasted 14 rounds. It was a titanic bout in which Ali and Frazier traded devastating barrages. Joe Frazier was hit so hard so often in the head and face that his eyes were swollen practically shut. Ali’s ribs had been broken early in the fight, restricting his breathing and making every subsequent punch a brutal blow. Between the 14th and 15th rounds Eddie Futch, Frazier’s trainer, stopped the fight after watching his boxer get relentlessly tagged with viscous head shots. Frazier had been fighting blind since the 13th round, and Futch would watch no more. The decision cost him his relationship with Frazier, who so wanted to finish the fight, he never spoke to Futch again. For his part, Ali would later say the “Thrilla in Manilla” was the closest he’d ever come to death.



I would do a disservice to the biographers and historians who’ve done much more in-depth studies of the men and their cultural significance, to try and retell that story. What is important-these two men genuinely disliked each other with a fervor bordering on hatred. Both captured within and running parallel to that hatred was a passion; a passion to prove themselves to one another and to the world. They were each others’ equal and opposite the unstoppable force of Ali, versus the immovable object of Joe Frazier. It was their epic rivalry that unleashed the greatness with both of these men.

Frazier was not only the first fighter to beat Ali, he was the first fighter to prove he deserved to be in the same ring with him. For Ali to defeat Frazier it would take all of his skills, all of his heart and indeed all of his courage. At the same time it’s equally important to remember that without Ali history wouldn’t remember Joe Frazier. His workman like style and admirable record would have been collected in the annals of boxing history with no great fanfare, he was a good fighter...Ali made him a great fighter.

They Hated Each Other.
They Needed Each Other.

So what’s the point? Why bring all this up?

Our culture is fractured in many ways. The battle over “green” and sustainability in our culture is no different. In one corner, you have the green community, lead by scientists and activists, who’ve done the work necessary to amass an argument that the world as we know it will end if we continue down our unsustainable path. In the other corner, the traditional business community that will not build sustainability into their practices because it’s the hot new trend or because a politician tells them they should. They see no need to hurt their margins for the sake of what they see as junk science. The two sides of this seemingly intractable battle draw a parallel with Ali and Frazier.

I’m not suggesting Al Gore and Dick Cheney square off in the ring for 15 rounds...I’m suggesting that the cultural battle being waged in the America can yield positive results. Just as the battle between Frazier and Ali forced them to become better boxers, and pushed them to the outer limits of their courage. These competing movements can push one another to higher greatness. The work of sustainability advocates is forcing corporations to think more responsibly about the Earth. The movement is forcing all of us to think more about our impact on the globe. At the same time, as the “green” movement grows so does the opposition movement and so it’s no longer enough for “treehuggers” to levy a guilt trip. Sustainability advocates must prove not only that their suggested course of action is better for the planet but better for business.

The struggle between these competing ideologies in our culture will continue to have low points (just as the Ali/Frazier war of words did.) But in all of this, it’s important to remember that it is exactly those enflamed passions that will challenge both sides to refine and get better. Good can come from rivalry, good can come from competition. So whether you're a "treehugger" or a "suit" remember despite the battles you are fighting now...there is something better waiting on the other side. A better, more complete culture.

Why We Will Save The World

I actually wrote this post in March, back when Build2Sustain was nothing more than an idea and a wordpress blog. Coming to the end of the year, I wanted to repost it one last time, as a reminder of why we're doing this, and as a little inspiration for 2010.

I woke up this morning and went about my normal routine but today was different. I could feel it building inside me. A sense of hope springing forward as I began to think about the generational challenges we are faced with and why this generation, our generation is ready for them. I look at what we can do, and what we are already doing and I realize that we will overcome not just this economic crisis, for those come and go. But we will overcome the crises of education, of healthcare and of energy within our lifetimes. Before I start to sound like too much of a salesman for the current administration, I want to share why I think our generation-the new professionals are uniquely suited to the age we were born into.

1. People are the new profit. If you read the commentary on web 2.0 and the future of the internet there is no end to the hand-wringing that goes on among the older set. The old saw goes “that’s great, but how do you turn a profit?” It’s not that we are a generation of socialists unconcerned with profit and loss, it’s that profit isn’t the driving force behind our motivations. Facebook began in a dorm room as an experiment in connecting people on campus. Google strove to create the better search engine. Netflix changed the way we rented movies. The list goes on, but profit wasn’t the driving force behind any of these ideas at the start, in the beginning it was about solving consumer’s problem. These companies have created new verbs, “google it”, he “friended” me, oh just “netflix” it. Fundamentally changing the way we do things, by solving a problem, rather than selling a bill of goods.

2. Small is the new big. If there’s one concept our generation is reflexively against it’s the concept of “too big to fail” entrepreneurship is something we all have a stake in now. We are a generation that maintains blogs and tweets to the world. We are our own ventures, our personal and professional lives are no longer as separate as they once were. For our generation ideas move as fast as you can type and hit the send button, so work happens wherever, whenever. Perfect for when the problems are global in scale and complex in nature.

3. Forget the suit, just bring your brain. The people at companies changing the world come to the office in sneakers and a sweatshirt. Power isn’t the currency anymore. We’ve changed the game, now it’s ideas and collaboration that build the better mousetrap.

4. This isn’t an age thing. Our generation is the most blind ever. Race, color, creed, gender, these matter less than what you bring to the table as a person and as a professional it doesn’t matter how old you are, it doesn’t matter where you grew up. Our generation looks to companies like Google, like Ecko, like Apple, you know what all of their leaders have in common? Nothing, and that’s exactly how it should be.

5. Not afraid to dream. Rare is the person of our generation who can’t quote Star Wars, or didn’t watch Sesame Street and the Muppets as a kid. Those kids grew up and gave us Lord of the Rings, and Pixar and Slumdog Millionaire. We’re a generation that’s not afraid to dream big, we’ve been doing it since we are little. The naysayers see us as a generation afraid to grow up. They’re wrong. We’re a generation that remembers what it is to dream, what it is to want something better, and will always work to make it happen.

6. Apathetic we are not. Young people fueled a political campaign and elected a president. Faced with eight years of leadership that completely rejected the values they hold dear this generation rose up and elected a new face to the scene. He might have been untested, but it was his ideas and rhetoric that drove President Obama to the oval office. His campaign’s ability to make every voice matter, to make every volunteer action important and open the halls of power to the masses that made him this generation’s choice for the Presidency. President Clinton had to beg young people to go vote, President Obama was their champion.

It’s not that I am arrogant about who we are and where we’re going, it’s not that I hate the ‘boomers' or resent having all of these problems to solve. It’s that I think our generation is uniquely suited to problems that lie ahead. Ones where millions of brains will be needed to fundamentally shift our way of life from waste to sustainability, from consolidated power to diverse networks, from "me" to "us". Our generation will spend the better part of our lifetimes calming the seige of global warming, ending the world’s carbon addiction, finding better ways to educate our kids and making sure we can all grow up healthy. We will lead the nation to a brighter day, one brilliant idea at a time.

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.