If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm. The largest uncertainty in the target arises from possible changes of non-CO2 forcings. An initial 350 ppm CO2 target may be achievable by phasing out coal use except where CO2 is captured and adopting agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon. If the present overshoot of this target CO2 is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects.
We have run out of time to stop driving Hummers, blasting our air conditioning with the doors open, and living in oblivion to the damage we are causing.
So what are you doing to reduce your greenhouse gas emission?
I'm going ride by bike to work again and stop eating beef.
I cycle, live in a city, in a temperate climate, drink from the tap, buy only things that I will use throughout my life that will serve others in their lives after mine, made with a minimal number of components, all recylable materials (OK, not my laptop, TV or stereo, iPod, light bulbs, fridge...). I try to use each grain, drop, scrap of comesitble before sending it or its packaging on to its next life through recycling/my poop. I try to use as little as is necessary: Most things we use have some reliable physical/chemical properties that make for optimum combinations, adding more ketchup/heat/detergent/time doesn't always improve the balance. I'm not scared of using my time and cognitive/physical energy to work out better ways of living my life. I think my median daily/monthly impact is pretty low, for a westerner, and my efficiency of material/resource use is high. My air travel is a concern, and I don't watch the food-miles on my fruit and booze. It's quite easy to let the rules slip in the office. I'm working on it.
I'm with weem on this one: If you want to double (triple, quadruple) your emissions, have kids. Go on, have lots of them. I know, your kids will be different, eco-children: they will contribute to their local and global societies and the economy of man as a whole. They will pay your pension and create wealth and health for millions. They won't drive cars, use electricity, eat or defecate. Your genetic code will be celebrated for centuries to come. In fact, you are the genesis of a dynasty of humane philanthropic uber-scientists that will make the whole problem of your guilt disappear, probably with their last exhalation. Or at least that's what I'm hoping mine will do. We aren't doomed, but we are building fires with our children's paddles while we shit in the creek.
Guilty as charged with procreating. But we're limiting it to one, just one because I never want to go through another 9 months of the wife being pregnant, its the right thing to do, and for a ton of other reasons.
Eco-babies may be a myth - or just a conspiracy theory. Just getting the minimum basic stuff that I can feel good about for the kid has been a challenge. We crossed that line and I feel like Wiley Coyote frantically moving his legs backwards while hanging in thin air 10' from the face of the cliff.
Maybe I can convince a few clients to build a little smaller. maybe they'll agree to spring for all the bells and whistles of less bad. But they want us to design stuff, and even more stuff, when what we need to do is make less stuff and reduce our trashing of the planet.
or maybe we can get urban renewal right this time and replace the 40 acre shopping mall parking lot with high density/high performance buildings served by mass transit and pull those folks out of their obesity sprawling mcmansion in the 'burbs and into a rightsized neighborhood near their job and schools.
Maybe we can find a way to harness more of the sun's energy and use less resources to do much much more so that those folks without, can become folks with something without squandering our civilization for cheap plastic trinkets all the way from china.
maybe I'm in the wrong profession and should just be a writer. Ideas consume very little energy, words consume just slightly more, but magnitudes less energy then things.
trees are not efficient. they are abundantly inefficient. we should be too. efficiency is a completely different topic that can be sold to financially motivated humans...but it does not actually mean anything.
i am personally 7 times more efficient than an american on average without even trying. i don't eat meat, ride a bike or train everywhere and we tend to eat local food. still we are way over the top i am quite certain when it comes to the environment. all we are is less bad. and that is not a place to aim for.
so i say lets be abundantly inneficient. be wasteful but in a way that doesn't harm, and maybe even helps other humans or other living thinglets. one tree makes a gazillion spores each year, but only actually needs to make one or two to reproduce itself...but thats ok, cuz its inneficiencies makes life possible for a lot of other animals...
i thinkwe should make architecture like that. mcdonough writes about it. has not been able to build that way yet, but i stil have hope...
develop livable urban density, for living and working
that is good for markets, convenient for people, where they can practically walk to get what they need or to work (or hop on an efficient transit system to get anywhere), where there are economies of scale for businesses, which are more fun really, better for social life than highways and strip malls... zone for smart density, develop infrastructure around smart density...
also consume less, design and build to last rather than making goods that are intended to be disposable...
design passive energy products that sell... that are as fashionable and convenient and save you money like a high tech gadget like an ipod...
also resource management and research on better renewable energy, agricultural, and environmentally safe material technologies...
i know this is basically science fiction, but i've often thought about terraforming as something worthy of research...
well, not necessarily making the moon or another planet like mars habitable, but what about technologies that could transform previously unproductive and uninhabitable, dead landscapes into productive landscapes where life can thrive... I think about the food shortages that may be in our future as our population grows... What about growing food in cities, but also engineering crops that can grow on oceans or in very harsh climates or regions... for example, vast areas of land that have been damaged by forest fires, or even deserts or soils that have some improper mineral content that is prohibitive to vegetation... if those crops could become a source of food or renewable energy... basically, we engineer environmentally destructive products for consumption, why not engineer environmentally productive products for consumption...
I have a question for those who have committed to NOT having kids (out of love for our planet):
Once you have made the decision to not reproduce, you should ask yourself the honest question "Is it really necessary for me to continue?"
Besides, those who haven't gotten "the green message" will still have kids and you will have acquiesced to them.....and their plans for the planet....
I think the population problem will eventually just take care of itself. Unfortunately probably not in the most humane way, i.e. mass starvation or disease.
In developed nations like the United States population is largely under control. Most of our growth is via immigration. There really is no need for a large family anymore and most choose not to for financial reasons. However the very rich trend towards large families, as do the very poor. One can afford it and the other has nothing to lose. The key is keep a strong middle class and population should remain steady.
I heard a think on NPR this weekend that scientists are finding ways to melt the glaciers on Mars so that we can all move there...what the fuck? Why cant the scientists figure out how to make people drive less?
the choice in not having children does not necessarily have to do with loving the planet. there are six billion freaking people on earth, most of them living in abject poverty. even if the planet was not feeling the effects of global warming, one can still say "hey there are too many freaking people. if you want a baby do a brangelina and adopt one.
ChiTown
Are we just breeders? Are you saying one can only contribute to the world by having children?
Quote{Once you have made the decision to not reproduce, you should ask yourself the honest question "Is it really necessary for me to continue?"}
I would say ask yourself that question prior to conceiving.
if we wish to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed..
Build a time machine, go back several million years to the original band of hominids struggling to survive in the African savannah (or wherever), and take them out with extreme prejudice (of course, then you will disappear also). Short of that, the planet is probably fucked.
(the jury will disregard that misanthropic statement!)
there's not too many people in the world. the only population problem is that for some reason a tiny fraction of the population seem to need fifty times more resources than the rest.
207moak....that's not what I said, so please don't turn my comments into more than they were. What I meant & what u should have inferred was:
Before you tell people to not have kids, and decide to not have kids under the premise that it is for the well-being of the planet, you should consider your own existence as being just as irresponsible as their potential offspring.
Furthermore, the handful of "Conscious" people opting out of civilisation will be replaced by thousands of people who really haven't considered those same consequences or their impact on the future environment.
I'd be happy for my ideas to outlast me, carried in the minds of others.
Consciousness as an individual doesn't mean much beyond masturbatory satisfaction. It's only what you put out there that makes a difference, sharing cognition instead of bodily fluids seems pretty good to me. Still, I intend to add to the masses.
i am coming to believe energy efficiency is not about ecology at all . its another problem, or a desire that has taken on its own life...no longer a part of a solution it has become a goal in itself.
so much of the discussion for architecture seems to be limited to efficiency, which to me is more about how to NOT touch or deal with ecology than how to fit into it. it sort of like saying we are going to make poison as a byproduct of our ambitions so lets make as little as possible. i would be much more interested in an approach to the environment that was not merely less bad, but actually part of the environment...and in which we made no poison...or in which our byproducts were also useful...
ultimately EVERYTHING is ecology. even poisons and pollution (like oxygen for example). the idea that we are not part of the earth and we need to get back to another time when we did better is to me a fallacy. why not go forward to a place where we will do better? i think it is possible if we have the will. but instead we are all focused on being less bad and the world is still turning shitty while we gaz at out collective tummies. time for a paradign shift
Austin Williams, former editor of the UK's AJ, and now heading the cities programme at LSE has just released his book The Enemies of Progress: Dangers of Sustainability.
I did read a better synopsis (though I haven't read the book, only released last week), but here is the one from play.com:
"This polemical book examines the concept of sustainability and presents a critical exploration of its all-pervasive influence on society. My proposition is that 'sustainability, manifested in several guises, represents a pernicious and corrosive doctrine that has survived primarily because there seems to be no alternative to its canon: in effect, its bi-partisan appeal has depressed critical engagement and neutered politics. It is a malign philosophy of misanthropy, low aspirations and restraint. This book argues for a destruction of the mantra of sustainability, removing its unthinking status as orthodoxy, and for the reinstatement of the notions of development, progress, experimentation and ambition in its place. Al Gore insists that the 'debate is over'. While musician KT Tunstall, spokesperson for Global Cool, a campaign to get stars to minimize their carbon footprint, says 'so many people are getting involved that it is becoming really quite uncool not to be involved'.This book will say that it might not be cool, but it is imperative to argue against the moralizing of politics so that we can start to unpick the contemporary, moralistic world of restrictive, sustainable practices. The debate is not over."
Look, PsyArch, no-one wants to be a misanthrope (which, for a human, is really self hatred) and no-one likes to harp on a doomsday scenario day in and day out...but when it's right in front of your damn eyes...
I don't know that the debate is over, like Gore says, but you certainly can't deny that maybe there is a balance here, that a certain number of each living creature, well represented on the surface of this planet, would be a better situation, and that we've passed that balance a while back.
You can fit a certain number of fish in a certain size aquarium, but if you put in twice, or three times, or twenty times the number in the tank, you have a disaster no matter how much you want to blabber on about it, it's just numbers and a matter of time. The last tiger or the last gorilla or the last bit of Amazon forest (all of which are not that far off), if they could talk, would clearly say we suck as caretakers of this planet.
The fascinating thing about the current human population is that as it is right now, there is enough food to feed everybody and enough clean water, its just distributed inconveniently for most. If we all walked everywhere, lived on 2000 cal per day that was harvested locally, drank water sourced locally and allocated our current resources more evenly i think it would actually be possible to sustain a global population at its current 6 billion person state.
Well.
First off efficiency isn't about ecology it is about economics. It makes pure business sense to use resources sparingly, given the right regulatory or market incentive(s).
You can be non-ecologically conscious and hyper-efficient.
Taken to it's maximum position i suppose one can argue that efficiency is in it's ultimate form, Cradle to Cradle. The continuous use and reformulation of energy/matter.
None of this however, will be ecological if done for strictly materialistic or economic factors.
It is only ecological when it connects with a deeper, non-material, moral, ethical way of living.
Ecological/sustainable the way it is discussed now usually implies a value judgment. Which may or may not be useful.
For me the real key is focusing on cyclical processing of input/output.
If we really want to live in "harmony".
Which to me means not shitting in your house. Which is why Mdler, I never can get behind futurists who say we will simply look to a new worlds resources..
What, is with that indeed.!!
well, to be fair the last time the super volcano went off (in india i beleive) on this planet humanity was reduced to 1000's (apparently the proof of this is in the genetic record). when yosemite goes up it will be a real end game and all the shite we're doing now will seem like an adolescent pimple...
so yeah, the earth is dangerous. which is why we should go to the stars. and also because it would be so cool to fins out if kim stanley robsinson had it all right.
i have no faith in malthusian theories. it is, furthermore, so self-serving as to be offensive.
Create a market where you can sell your pollution rights, give a market value to pollution rights that create money incentives to develop production that does not pollute so that you can sell your rights, which lets the market forces fight for your environment...
But the only way this can work? If America takes the initiative. If we bite the bullet for the good of the world as a whole... It's hard. It will mean initial economic pains for us...
Unfortunately, in the past, the worlds largest and most advanced economy has not acted in the best interests of the planet, because there hasn't been enough initial push to put the economic incentives, the system in place... It takes government intervention to create that market... There will always be initially alot of resistance from those interests and nations that profit from pollution and have the most to lose from a cap on pollution... But maybe with a new government, with leadership that thinks about the long term benefits rather than short term losses, a cap and trade system might be possible...
The last time I experienced such a hysterical one-sided debate was the 1980's when as a child I was told about the likely probabilities of nuclear holocaust. Not that I am advocating nuclear holocaust. Then the ozone layer etc, etc. We have had global cooling, global warming, and now the all encompassing climate change.
But then, like now, as a New Zealander I am/we are forced to contemplate massive economic and social change for a problem we had nothing to do with [okay, Ernie Rutherford split the atom, but...] whilst the US and China sit idly by.
My government has been back tracking of late because the costs were going to be too high. Our agricultural system, our largest industry and the most efficient in the western world which runs without government subsidies [yes US and Europe, contemplate that!] was going to suffer most. Yet our government was quite happy to exclude it from credits whilst competing with other countries who would be further subsidised by carbon credits. One report estimated that in 2013 after Kyoto is ratified that there would be 20,000 lost jobs - in a country of 4 million thats substantial.
I am sick of this whole thing. I am sick of the lack of debate. I am sick of the political and religious fanaticism of the green movement. I am sick of feeling like I cant question this without reprise and attack.
Make no mistake, sustainable practices in architecture and development is a good thing. It is a good thing now, it was a good thing 100 years ago, it will be good 100 years from now. But it is good not because its fashionable or hysterical or because the world is going to end. It is good because it is common sense.
It is my firm belief that in about 3 years time, Al Gore and his ilk will be looked at like the Flat Earth Society. However, that wont deter from the fact this has been an educational exercise. I could do without the guilt though - guilt is for the ill-informed.
you make a good point on the economic hardships of countries that ratify the kyoto agreement... Especially when you consider that the country that does the most damage, emits the most carbon dioxide, and burns the most fossil fuels of any coutry in the world doesn't ratify the agreement...
isn't one of the problems here that the United States hasn't committed to the cap and trade system? They are the country doing the most damage, and yet countries that do less damage are working the hardest (and eating the most hardship) to fix the problem that others have largely been responsible for?
i understand that it'll be hard... that it is an economic disadvantage to adopt the cap and trade if others do not. that is why it is so important that the playing field be level. the market only works if it is fair competition, and it's not... and even then, it won't seem fair... it won't seem fair if polluters suddenly have a *resource* in the pollution quantity that they "own"... but it's real... some countries, like it or not, have more production power, they have larger populations, and they do need to pollute more... you couldn't for example compare a country like switzerland with a country like india... populations and circumstances are different.
but let's talk about the countries that are to benefit most from continuing to exapnd their pollution in years to come, the countries that will in short time exceed the united states in pollution as well as the magnitude of their economy.... clearly china, that is building one coal plant a week... the competition, the economic force that a country like china is going to bring, the loss in jobs that it may likely cause *while polluting* are going to happen, whether or not you create a cap and trade. this is not so much subsidizing their industry, because, paying them not to pollute means forcing them to have to invest in clean fuel, and forcing them to forgo the profiatble competitive advantages of developing their industry on cheaper and more harmful fuel sources like coal, while expanding their economy... the fact is, america and most of the developed world built its economic strength on the back of polluting the environment. if you don't create an incentive system for new, developing economic monsters like china and india to take a different path than the one that we've taken, they will nevertheless grow in economic power, create greater and greater competition, probably faster even, and on the back of the environment as well. the point is not to give them an unfair advantage, the point is to create a universal cap and trade, a level playing field... it only works if everybody is subjected to the same rules...
things change. jobs are lost when the market constraints change. it's unfortunate that the constraints may be tougher on some countries than others... but if those constraints encourage innovation and produce change for the better, that's a good thing...
but i see your point, people need to fully study and understand the forces at work, the impacts of things before adopting a religious faith in something that is labelled "green"...
my pick for world-ending disasters is that the western ice-shelf of the antarctic falls off, and sea levels go up by 30m.
i wish the nz government didn't have to backtrack on the emissions trading scheme - because I think it's a good thing - but I don't see they have much choice.
A recent MIT study (& here too) found that even the homeless in America have twice the carbon footprint of the global average because of the services available to them.
SO a moose in america has a bigger GHG footprint then a moose in siberia. Moose are not increasing their farting at an exponential rate like us humans are increasing our GHG emissions. I do like moose jerky and moose burgers.
we should be figuring out ways to make waste work for us. remember mvrdv's pig city? anybody out there with more knowledge know if that's really feasible?
It is less likely to be hard than to be catastrophic. It is one thing to orchestrate change - change is good, and if it needs to be done so be it. When US, China and other non participating countries sign-up lets have a chat.
But before that, lets actually have a debate about what is currently a hypothesis, not a fact. The scope of changes required, whilst they point in the right direction, may be uneccessary in their scale and impact. So before we start tearing up economies, lets etablish that the reasons are legitimate.
How much more legitimate do you need the science to be??? If your read Dr. Jim Hansen's paper, the case is rather black and white for something based on probability and statistics.
The better debate is what the costs are going to be if we don't act NOW versus maintaining the status quo inactivity. removing CFCs wasn't that difficult (and we still have air conditioners keeping us cool), so it's not like we don't have technological solutions that work right now to eliminate GHGs. Its just that China refuses to enforce their own environmental laws and the current president has his head up his ass (even if he uses PVs at his ranch).
There are problems. Some of the science is established, even if only in hypothesis and extrapolation. Climate change could lead to some sort of an albedo flipping point. True.
However, when this knowledge filters through the many layers of government, global non-governmental organisations, advisors, you me and our children, it doesn't always come out the other end as good science.
Ken Livingstone, recently ousted London Mayor and father of FIVE children instigated several moves with the aim of greening London. One such, a derivation from the C40/Clinton Climate Initiative (which is, ultimately, an organisation that believes in Kyoto style cap & trade) is that new large buildings in London should generate 20% of their energy onsite in a renewable fashion. While the higher goal is to make building designers reduce the energy needs of their buildings (and thus reduce the amount of energy that they need to generate through renewbles), this is utterly wasteful. Any wind turbine installed in London would be far better placed nearer the coast. Solar panels are rarely effective in the London climate, and again would be better placed in an array using mirrors where they are unobstructed by neighbouring buildings. Biomass boilers are prohibited due to emissions, and in fact the need for fuel deliveries in the amounts required to generate anywhere near 20% of a building's energy needs far outweighs the benefits of the boiler itself. And should you think of using natural ventilation to reduce the building's energy needs you would find that the building's airtightness is compromised such that the Building Regulation Part L is not achieved.
These are just a few of the failings of the well-intentioned.
Unfortunately physical, chemical and logistical relationships that are incontrovertable are often too complex for our knee-jerk political systems, and the political jerks that run them.
Shout science from the rooftops, but please be sure, and please make it simple, and please make large donations to the politicians that make the decisions, and make sure that they are bright, and that they... et cetera et cetera.
@puddles, do we have a legitimate reason for fouling/destroying the earth? And how old are you, and do you wipe your own?
Read "40 signs of rain" and the other books in the trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson. It puts a good deal of data, realistic solutions, and a happy ending along a decent plot line.
His books on terraforming mars are much better - goes into how to build buildings on mars too! Tres cool.
if we wish to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed..
has drawn a clear line in the sand.
If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm. The largest uncertainty in the target arises from possible changes of non-CO2 forcings. An initial 350 ppm CO2 target may be achievable by phasing out coal use except where CO2 is captured and adopting agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon. If the present overshoot of this target CO2 is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects.
LAtimes
worldchanging
yale globe
architecture 2030
We have run out of time to stop driving Hummers, blasting our air conditioning with the doors open, and living in oblivion to the damage we are causing.
So what are you doing to reduce your greenhouse gas emission?
I'm going ride by bike to work again and stop eating beef.
the best thing for the planet would be for the humans to go bye bye.
Easy - don't have children.
i make my own compost
stop buying stuff, and make the stuff we have last longer.
I cycle, live in a city, in a temperate climate, drink from the tap, buy only things that I will use throughout my life that will serve others in their lives after mine, made with a minimal number of components, all recylable materials (OK, not my laptop, TV or stereo, iPod, light bulbs, fridge...). I try to use each grain, drop, scrap of comesitble before sending it or its packaging on to its next life through recycling/my poop. I try to use as little as is necessary: Most things we use have some reliable physical/chemical properties that make for optimum combinations, adding more ketchup/heat/detergent/time doesn't always improve the balance. I'm not scared of using my time and cognitive/physical energy to work out better ways of living my life. I think my median daily/monthly impact is pretty low, for a westerner, and my efficiency of material/resource use is high. My air travel is a concern, and I don't watch the food-miles on my fruit and booze. It's quite easy to let the rules slip in the office. I'm working on it.
I'm with weem on this one: If you want to double (triple, quadruple) your emissions, have kids. Go on, have lots of them. I know, your kids will be different, eco-children: they will contribute to their local and global societies and the economy of man as a whole. They will pay your pension and create wealth and health for millions. They won't drive cars, use electricity, eat or defecate. Your genetic code will be celebrated for centuries to come. In fact, you are the genesis of a dynasty of humane philanthropic uber-scientists that will make the whole problem of your guilt disappear, probably with their last exhalation. Or at least that's what I'm hoping mine will do. We aren't doomed, but we are building fires with our children's paddles while we shit in the creek.
Boy those flames are pretty!
Guilty as charged with procreating. But we're limiting it to one, just one because I never want to go through another 9 months of the wife being pregnant, its the right thing to do, and for a ton of other reasons.
Eco-babies may be a myth - or just a conspiracy theory. Just getting the minimum basic stuff that I can feel good about for the kid has been a challenge. We crossed that line and I feel like Wiley Coyote frantically moving his legs backwards while hanging in thin air 10' from the face of the cliff.
Maybe I can convince a few clients to build a little smaller. maybe they'll agree to spring for all the bells and whistles of less bad. But they want us to design stuff, and even more stuff, when what we need to do is make less stuff and reduce our trashing of the planet.
or maybe we can get urban renewal right this time and replace the 40 acre shopping mall parking lot with high density/high performance buildings served by mass transit and pull those folks out of their obesity sprawling mcmansion in the 'burbs and into a rightsized neighborhood near their job and schools.
Maybe we can find a way to harness more of the sun's energy and use less resources to do much much more so that those folks without, can become folks with something without squandering our civilization for cheap plastic trinkets all the way from china.
maybe I'm in the wrong profession and should just be a writer. Ideas consume very little energy, words consume just slightly more, but magnitudes less energy then things.
wim mcdonough has better approach.
trees are not efficient. they are abundantly inefficient. we should be too. efficiency is a completely different topic that can be sold to financially motivated humans...but it does not actually mean anything.
i am personally 7 times more efficient than an american on average without even trying. i don't eat meat, ride a bike or train everywhere and we tend to eat local food. still we are way over the top i am quite certain when it comes to the environment. all we are is less bad. and that is not a place to aim for.
so i say lets be abundantly inneficient. be wasteful but in a way that doesn't harm, and maybe even helps other humans or other living thinglets. one tree makes a gazillion spores each year, but only actually needs to make one or two to reproduce itself...but thats ok, cuz its inneficiencies makes life possible for a lot of other animals...
i thinkwe should make architecture like that. mcdonough writes about it. has not been able to build that way yet, but i stil have hope...
develop livable urban density, for living and working
that is good for markets, convenient for people, where they can practically walk to get what they need or to work (or hop on an efficient transit system to get anywhere), where there are economies of scale for businesses, which are more fun really, better for social life than highways and strip malls... zone for smart density, develop infrastructure around smart density...
also consume less, design and build to last rather than making goods that are intended to be disposable...
design passive energy products that sell... that are as fashionable and convenient and save you money like a high tech gadget like an ipod...
also resource management and research on better renewable energy, agricultural, and environmentally safe material technologies...
i know this is basically science fiction, but i've often thought about terraforming as something worthy of research...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraform
well, not necessarily making the moon or another planet like mars habitable, but what about technologies that could transform previously unproductive and uninhabitable, dead landscapes into productive landscapes where life can thrive... I think about the food shortages that may be in our future as our population grows... What about growing food in cities, but also engineering crops that can grow on oceans or in very harsh climates or regions... for example, vast areas of land that have been damaged by forest fires, or even deserts or soils that have some improper mineral content that is prohibitive to vegetation... if those crops could become a source of food or renewable energy... basically, we engineer environmentally destructive products for consumption, why not engineer environmentally productive products for consumption...
. its called an ecology and yes, we must restore our connection with the living systems of this planet.
anybody attend ecocity world summit last month?
I have a question for those who have committed to NOT having kids (out of love for our planet):
Once you have made the decision to not reproduce, you should ask yourself the honest question "Is it really necessary for me to continue?"
Besides, those who haven't gotten "the green message" will still have kids and you will have acquiesced to them.....and their plans for the planet....
I think the population problem will eventually just take care of itself. Unfortunately probably not in the most humane way, i.e. mass starvation or disease.
In developed nations like the United States population is largely under control. Most of our growth is via immigration. There really is no need for a large family anymore and most choose not to for financial reasons. However the very rich trend towards large families, as do the very poor. One can afford it and the other has nothing to lose. The key is keep a strong middle class and population should remain steady.
I heard a think on NPR this weekend that scientists are finding ways to melt the glaciers on Mars so that we can all move there...what the fuck? Why cant the scientists figure out how to make people drive less?
the choice in not having children does not necessarily have to do with loving the planet. there are six billion freaking people on earth, most of them living in abject poverty. even if the planet was not feeling the effects of global warming, one can still say "hey there are too many freaking people. if you want a baby do a brangelina and adopt one.
...says the guy already securely here on the planet.
having been born thats a given. as far as being secure? that's another matter entirely.
ChiTown
Are we just breeders? Are you saying one can only contribute to the world by having children?
Quote{Once you have made the decision to not reproduce, you should ask yourself the honest question "Is it really necessary for me to continue?"}
I would say ask yourself that question prior to conceiving.
...ahh, the line of sanctimonious proclaimers forms at the cliff's edge...but only the truly green will actually jump...
Build a time machine, go back several million years to the original band of hominids struggling to survive in the African savannah (or wherever), and take them out with extreme prejudice (of course, then you will disappear also). Short of that, the planet is probably fucked.
(the jury will disregard that misanthropic statement!)
there's not too many people in the world. the only population problem is that for some reason a tiny fraction of the population seem to need fifty times more resources than the rest.
207moak....that's not what I said, so please don't turn my comments into more than they were. What I meant & what u should have inferred was:
Before you tell people to not have kids, and decide to not have kids under the premise that it is for the well-being of the planet, you should consider your own existence as being just as irresponsible as their potential offspring.
Furthermore, the handful of "Conscious" people opting out of civilisation will be replaced by thousands of people who really haven't considered those same consequences or their impact on the future environment.
Progress is memetic rather than genetic?
I'd be happy for my ideas to outlast me, carried in the minds of others.
Consciousness as an individual doesn't mean much beyond masturbatory satisfaction. It's only what you put out there that makes a difference, sharing cognition instead of bodily fluids seems pretty good to me. Still, I intend to add to the masses.
"the best thing for the planet would be for the humans to go bye bye"
This says is all...
what ideas?
whose children?
Man these nihilist types is touchy folk.
Who are you calling a nihilist?
i am coming to believe energy efficiency is not about ecology at all . its another problem, or a desire that has taken on its own life...no longer a part of a solution it has become a goal in itself.
so much of the discussion for architecture seems to be limited to efficiency, which to me is more about how to NOT touch or deal with ecology than how to fit into it. it sort of like saying we are going to make poison as a byproduct of our ambitions so lets make as little as possible. i would be much more interested in an approach to the environment that was not merely less bad, but actually part of the environment...and in which we made no poison...or in which our byproducts were also useful...
ultimately EVERYTHING is ecology. even poisons and pollution (like oxygen for example). the idea that we are not part of the earth and we need to get back to another time when we did better is to me a fallacy. why not go forward to a place where we will do better? i think it is possible if we have the will. but instead we are all focused on being less bad and the world is still turning shitty while we gaz at out collective tummies. time for a paradign shift
.
The climate was changing before us, and will change after us....
@jump
Austin Williams, former editor of the UK's AJ, and now heading the cities programme at LSE has just released his book The Enemies of Progress: Dangers of Sustainability.
I did read a better synopsis (though I haven't read the book, only released last week), but here is the one from play.com:
"This polemical book examines the concept of sustainability and presents a critical exploration of its all-pervasive influence on society. My proposition is that 'sustainability, manifested in several guises, represents a pernicious and corrosive doctrine that has survived primarily because there seems to be no alternative to its canon: in effect, its bi-partisan appeal has depressed critical engagement and neutered politics. It is a malign philosophy of misanthropy, low aspirations and restraint. This book argues for a destruction of the mantra of sustainability, removing its unthinking status as orthodoxy, and for the reinstatement of the notions of development, progress, experimentation and ambition in its place. Al Gore insists that the 'debate is over'. While musician KT Tunstall, spokesperson for Global Cool, a campaign to get stars to minimize their carbon footprint, says 'so many people are getting involved that it is becoming really quite uncool not to be involved'.This book will say that it might not be cool, but it is imperative to argue against the moralizing of politics so that we can start to unpick the contemporary, moralistic world of restrictive, sustainable practices. The debate is not over."
what if having a child were to turn you into a better more eco-responsible citizen? would the pros outweigh the cons?
Them's fightin' words, PsyArch!
Look, PsyArch, no-one wants to be a misanthrope (which, for a human, is really self hatred) and no-one likes to harp on a doomsday scenario day in and day out...but when it's right in front of your damn eyes...
I don't know that the debate is over, like Gore says, but you certainly can't deny that maybe there is a balance here, that a certain number of each living creature, well represented on the surface of this planet, would be a better situation, and that we've passed that balance a while back.
You can fit a certain number of fish in a certain size aquarium, but if you put in twice, or three times, or twenty times the number in the tank, you have a disaster no matter how much you want to blabber on about it, it's just numbers and a matter of time. The last tiger or the last gorilla or the last bit of Amazon forest (all of which are not that far off), if they could talk, would clearly say we suck as caretakers of this planet.
The fascinating thing about the current human population is that as it is right now, there is enough food to feed everybody and enough clean water, its just distributed inconveniently for most. If we all walked everywhere, lived on 2000 cal per day that was harvested locally, drank water sourced locally and allocated our current resources more evenly i think it would actually be possible to sustain a global population at its current 6 billion person state.
Well.
First off efficiency isn't about ecology it is about economics. It makes pure business sense to use resources sparingly, given the right regulatory or market incentive(s).
You can be non-ecologically conscious and hyper-efficient.
Taken to it's maximum position i suppose one can argue that efficiency is in it's ultimate form, Cradle to Cradle. The continuous use and reformulation of energy/matter.
None of this however, will be ecological if done for strictly materialistic or economic factors.
It is only ecological when it connects with a deeper, non-material, moral, ethical way of living.
Ecological/sustainable the way it is discussed now usually implies a value judgment. Which may or may not be useful.
For me the real key is focusing on cyclical processing of input/output.
If we really want to live in "harmony".
Which to me means not shitting in your house. Which is why Mdler, I never can get behind futurists who say we will simply look to a new worlds resources..
What, is with that indeed.!!
Appleseed,
"The climate was changing before us, and will change after us...."
this sounds strangely battle-star-galactica-ish...
well, to be fair the last time the super volcano went off (in india i beleive) on this planet humanity was reduced to 1000's (apparently the proof of this is in the genetic record). when yosemite goes up it will be a real end game and all the shite we're doing now will seem like an adolescent pimple...
so yeah, the earth is dangerous. which is why we should go to the stars. and also because it would be so cool to fins out if kim stanley robsinson had it all right.
i have no faith in malthusian theories. it is, furthermore, so self-serving as to be offensive.
Right on... Cap and trade system on pollution.
Create a market where you can sell your pollution rights, give a market value to pollution rights that create money incentives to develop production that does not pollute so that you can sell your rights, which lets the market forces fight for your environment...
But the only way this can work? If America takes the initiative. If we bite the bullet for the good of the world as a whole... It's hard. It will mean initial economic pains for us...
Unfortunately, in the past, the worlds largest and most advanced economy has not acted in the best interests of the planet, because there hasn't been enough initial push to put the economic incentives, the system in place... It takes government intervention to create that market... There will always be initially alot of resistance from those interests and nations that profit from pollution and have the most to lose from a cap on pollution... But maybe with a new government, with leadership that thinks about the long term benefits rather than short term losses, a cap and trade system might be possible...
The last time I experienced such a hysterical one-sided debate was the 1980's when as a child I was told about the likely probabilities of nuclear holocaust. Not that I am advocating nuclear holocaust. Then the ozone layer etc, etc. We have had global cooling, global warming, and now the all encompassing climate change.
But then, like now, as a New Zealander I am/we are forced to contemplate massive economic and social change for a problem we had nothing to do with [okay, Ernie Rutherford split the atom, but...] whilst the US and China sit idly by.
My government has been back tracking of late because the costs were going to be too high. Our agricultural system, our largest industry and the most efficient in the western world which runs without government subsidies [yes US and Europe, contemplate that!] was going to suffer most. Yet our government was quite happy to exclude it from credits whilst competing with other countries who would be further subsidised by carbon credits. One report estimated that in 2013 after Kyoto is ratified that there would be 20,000 lost jobs - in a country of 4 million thats substantial.
I am sick of this whole thing. I am sick of the lack of debate. I am sick of the political and religious fanaticism of the green movement. I am sick of feeling like I cant question this without reprise and attack.
Make no mistake, sustainable practices in architecture and development is a good thing. It is a good thing now, it was a good thing 100 years ago, it will be good 100 years from now. But it is good not because its fashionable or hysterical or because the world is going to end. It is good because it is common sense.
It is my firm belief that in about 3 years time, Al Gore and his ilk will be looked at like the Flat Earth Society. However, that wont deter from the fact this has been an educational exercise. I could do without the guilt though - guilt is for the ill-informed.
diabase,
you make a good point on the economic hardships of countries that ratify the kyoto agreement... Especially when you consider that the country that does the most damage, emits the most carbon dioxide, and burns the most fossil fuels of any coutry in the world doesn't ratify the agreement...
isn't one of the problems here that the United States hasn't committed to the cap and trade system? They are the country doing the most damage, and yet countries that do less damage are working the hardest (and eating the most hardship) to fix the problem that others have largely been responsible for?
i understand that it'll be hard... that it is an economic disadvantage to adopt the cap and trade if others do not. that is why it is so important that the playing field be level. the market only works if it is fair competition, and it's not... and even then, it won't seem fair... it won't seem fair if polluters suddenly have a *resource* in the pollution quantity that they "own"... but it's real... some countries, like it or not, have more production power, they have larger populations, and they do need to pollute more... you couldn't for example compare a country like switzerland with a country like india... populations and circumstances are different.
but let's talk about the countries that are to benefit most from continuing to exapnd their pollution in years to come, the countries that will in short time exceed the united states in pollution as well as the magnitude of their economy.... clearly china, that is building one coal plant a week... the competition, the economic force that a country like china is going to bring, the loss in jobs that it may likely cause *while polluting* are going to happen, whether or not you create a cap and trade. this is not so much subsidizing their industry, because, paying them not to pollute means forcing them to have to invest in clean fuel, and forcing them to forgo the profiatble competitive advantages of developing their industry on cheaper and more harmful fuel sources like coal, while expanding their economy... the fact is, america and most of the developed world built its economic strength on the back of polluting the environment. if you don't create an incentive system for new, developing economic monsters like china and india to take a different path than the one that we've taken, they will nevertheless grow in economic power, create greater and greater competition, probably faster even, and on the back of the environment as well. the point is not to give them an unfair advantage, the point is to create a universal cap and trade, a level playing field... it only works if everybody is subjected to the same rules...
things change. jobs are lost when the market constraints change. it's unfortunate that the constraints may be tougher on some countries than others... but if those constraints encourage innovation and produce change for the better, that's a good thing...
but i see your point, people need to fully study and understand the forces at work, the impacts of things before adopting a religious faith in something that is labelled "green"...
my pick for world-ending disasters is that the western ice-shelf of the antarctic falls off, and sea levels go up by 30m.
i wish the nz government didn't have to backtrack on the emissions trading scheme - because I think it's a good thing - but I don't see they have much choice.
, well said Jump.
A recent MIT study (& here too) found that even the homeless in America have twice the carbon footprint of the global average because of the services available to them.
SO a moose in america has a bigger GHG footprint then a moose in siberia. Moose are not increasing their farting at an exponential rate like us humans are increasing our GHG emissions. I do like moose jerky and moose burgers.
i like eating moose too...but i want nothing to do with moose farts
we should be figuring out ways to make waste work for us. remember mvrdv's pig city? anybody out there with more knowledge know if that's really feasible?
bRink,
It is less likely to be hard than to be catastrophic. It is one thing to orchestrate change - change is good, and if it needs to be done so be it. When US, China and other non participating countries sign-up lets have a chat.
But before that, lets actually have a debate about what is currently a hypothesis, not a fact. The scope of changes required, whilst they point in the right direction, may be uneccessary in their scale and impact. So before we start tearing up economies, lets etablish that the reasons are legitimate.
How much more legitimate do you need the science to be??? If your read Dr. Jim Hansen's paper, the case is rather black and white for something based on probability and statistics.
The better debate is what the costs are going to be if we don't act NOW versus maintaining the status quo inactivity. removing CFCs wasn't that difficult (and we still have air conditioners keeping us cool), so it's not like we don't have technological solutions that work right now to eliminate GHGs. Its just that China refuses to enforce their own environmental laws and the current president has his head up his ass (even if he uses PVs at his ranch).
Yeah, do we even have legitimate reasons for saving/preserving the earth?
There are problems. Some of the science is established, even if only in hypothesis and extrapolation. Climate change could lead to some sort of an albedo flipping point. True.
However, when this knowledge filters through the many layers of government, global non-governmental organisations, advisors, you me and our children, it doesn't always come out the other end as good science.
Ken Livingstone, recently ousted London Mayor and father of FIVE children instigated several moves with the aim of greening London. One such, a derivation from the C40/Clinton Climate Initiative (which is, ultimately, an organisation that believes in Kyoto style cap & trade) is that new large buildings in London should generate 20% of their energy onsite in a renewable fashion. While the higher goal is to make building designers reduce the energy needs of their buildings (and thus reduce the amount of energy that they need to generate through renewbles), this is utterly wasteful. Any wind turbine installed in London would be far better placed nearer the coast. Solar panels are rarely effective in the London climate, and again would be better placed in an array using mirrors where they are unobstructed by neighbouring buildings. Biomass boilers are prohibited due to emissions, and in fact the need for fuel deliveries in the amounts required to generate anywhere near 20% of a building's energy needs far outweighs the benefits of the boiler itself. And should you think of using natural ventilation to reduce the building's energy needs you would find that the building's airtightness is compromised such that the Building Regulation Part L is not achieved.
These are just a few of the failings of the well-intentioned.
Unfortunately physical, chemical and logistical relationships that are incontrovertable are often too complex for our knee-jerk political systems, and the political jerks that run them.
Shout science from the rooftops, but please be sure, and please make it simple, and please make large donations to the politicians that make the decisions, and make sure that they are bright, and that they... et cetera et cetera.
@puddles, do we have a legitimate reason for fouling/destroying the earth? And how old are you, and do you wipe your own?
Read "40 signs of rain" and the other books in the trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson. It puts a good deal of data, realistic solutions, and a happy ending along a decent plot line.
His books on terraforming mars are much better - goes into how to build buildings on mars too! Tres cool.
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.