A Green World is a Safer One Q&A

For the Greener Good

On February 18, 2009, architect Ed Mazria and Obama-Biden Transition Project co-chair John Podesta spoke at the National Building Museum as part of the For the Greener Good lecture series. Mazria talked about his ambitious 2030 Challenge, which promises to reduce building carbon emissions by 50% in 2010, and Podesta, who also served as chief of staff in the Clinton White House, discussed the impact of sustainability on the world political climate. After the program, Mazria and Podesta answered selected questions from audience members and online visitors submitted through an online Q&A Forum. Here are their answers:

Q: As an architect and LEED accredited professional in active practice, I applaud the attention and emphasis on sustainable design in the recent "stimulus" package and proposed federal budget. However, I see a sad irony in that the Obama administration and Congressional leaders on the one hand support sustainability in buildings and renewable energy, but on the other hand support massive increases in economically unsustainable government spending, record national debt and an explosive growth in social welfare programs. What is the benefit of sustainable environments if the political class is spending and fiscally bankrupting our future?

John Podesta: I think that President Obama is striking a good balance on fiscal responsibility given the unprecedented situation he inherited. The president not only inherited the largest deficit in our nation's history, $1.3 trillion, from the Bush administration, but is also faced with the gravest economic crisis since the Great Depression. The American Recovery and Reinvestment package is unprecedented in its size and scope, but it is crafted to be a temporary increase in government spending to jumpstart the economy. It will not create permanent growth in social welfare programs.

For the longer term, the president and the new administration have been clear that fiscal responsibility is a necessity. The president convened a fiscal responsibility summit in February and declared bluntly that the long-term fiscal path we are on is unsustainable. He committed to reforming the budget process to include the true cost of expenditures such as the Iraq war and natural disasters so we can be honest with Americans about the costs of policy choices we make. President Obama has already identified substantial deficit reductions over the next decade in his FY2010 budget, and has directed OMB Director Peter Orszag to continue to find additional savings as the budget moves through Congress. His budget cuts the deficit in half by the end of his first term and stabilizes the debt as a percentage of GDP.
 
The president, however, also recognizes that we can no longer afford to ignore the long-term priorities of the nation like energy independence, health care, and education that will ensure our country grows and prospers into the future. Investments in long-term growth are also critical to the nation’s fiscal future. Increased growth leads to increased revenues which lead to fiscal balance. In fact, many of the investments needed in the immediate future after years of neglect, will pay for themselves by expanding the economy. While economic growth alone will not solve our long-term fiscal challenge, it is a key part of it. In fact the energy efficiency and green construction investments in the recovery package are some of the most fiscally responsible forms of spending around, enabling government agencies to realize long term cost savings on energy bills even as we jumpstart construction jobs and new industries. As for the rest, the president has been focused on addressing the immediate economic crisis in his first two months in office, but that is clearly a first step to restoring balance, discipline and smart priorities to the federal budget as we move beyond the current fiscal crisis to address long-run fiscal challenges.

Q: I believe it was Ed Mazria (perhaps both of you?) who mentioned the technological improvements that have been made, in building more energy-efficient structures, transportation systems, etc., what can you tell me about technical advancements in ways to mitigate pollution or even repair the damage done? I suppose I am wondering whether there is at all a silver lining to our having waited longer than perhaps we should have to take on the issue of global climate change.

Podesta: I think that you are right that there is a silver lining, but let’s not forget also that there is a very real cloud here as well. Global warming is a gathering storm. Our current energy path is unsustainable, and inaction in the face of this crisis will be tremendously costly not only in terms of direct harms to the environment, but also in real economic terms from crop loss, damage to property and infrastructure, and through social disruption especially in some of the poorest parts of the planet. Having said that, you are correct, the US and the global economy are better prepared to respond than at any time in our history. The major barriers to moving to a low carbon economy are no longer technological, but social, political and economic. We have a whole new generation of clean technology waiting to be deployed.

These are some very exciting products out there that could remake our economy. Technology like advanced batteries for a new generation of electric cars, mass production of thin film solar panels for clean cheap electricity with no moving parts, new IT systems for running a smart electrical grid to easily access energy efficiency, high speed rail and rapid transit systems to reshape our land use patterns, low carbon and next generation bio-fuels that can end dependence on oil, and a whole host of very simple changes to forest management and agricultural systems that can produce tremendous global development benefits. If we are smart about using our economic recovery to move the economy onto a platform of low carbon energy, there is indeed a very real silver lining to the current crisis. The bottom line however is that we are playing an incredible game of brinksmanship with our current energy system, and there is no time to waste in making the shift to green buildings and a clean energy economy.

Mazria: I suggest reading Dr. James Hansen's latest posting "Mar. 24, 2009: Air Pollution Climate Forcings, Talk at Climate Change Congress in Copenhagen on Mar 11, 2009" on his web site. One optimistic item of interest is Chart 19, which states that CO2 sinks are not decreasing but continuing to increase their uptake of CO2 as we continue to burn fossil fuels. The second is the silver bullet to addressing climate change, conventional coal phase out between 2010 and 2030. The point of his talk: there is still time to address climate change, but not much time.

Q: During the Summer Olympics, there was a lot of coverage about China's efforts to improve air quality by limiting driving, closing factories and more. Have they maintained any of these efforts since? Did the rest of the world learn any lessons from what they did?

Podesta: During for the 2008 Summer Olympics China implemented a host of large scale measures specifically aimed to reduce pollution. For example, they removed two million cars from the roads of Beijing, shutdown of all upwind factories, and halted major construction projects. Following the Olympics however, they discontinued many of these efforts. However, China has invested about 120 billion Yuan ($17.3 billion) over the last 10 years to improve Beijing’s air quality. This funding has seen the return of Sulfur Dioxide and Nitrogen Dioxide to target levels. Despite this, the amount of inhalable particulate matter (PM10) remains above the national targets. It is also worth noting that China has more stringent fuel economy standards than the United States.

China's success in clearing Beijing's skies for the months of August and September 2008 showed the world that strong pollution reduction targets can be met and have immediate results. Of course it is a simpler task to change public behavior when you have state control over much of the economy, limited human rights, and are only working within a short time frame. What is needed now is a long-term strategy to understand how we can make more systemic changes to the economy for the long term. This will take strong actions in rapidly growing countries like China and India, but also critically in the United States of America.

Q: Ed Mazria: you have spoken about the interest in green building among today's architecture students. Are they finding the kinds of jobs they want?
John Podesta: what is government doing or what will it do to support the creation of jobs for green architects?

Mazria: Since the 2030 Challenge was issued in 2006, the American Institute of Architects and a growing list of government organizations and professional firms have adopted the targets and are working to implement them. However, given the current economic downturn in the US, and the building sector being hardest hit, new jobs are difficult to come by. The good news is that new code legislation and green building and development incentives are being put in place now, so when the economy turns around, the demand for professionals with training in sustainable design will be high.

Podesta: When the Apollo 11 mission ushered in the dawn of the space age, the average age of the engineers in the mission control room at NASA was 26. That means that those young men and women were 18 years old, and deciding what to do with their future when President Kennedy issued his challenge to send a man to the moon 8 years earlier. I am optimistic that today’s challenges are no less profound and no less inspiring to a new generation of smart capable and innovative American young people. Meeting the challenge of global warming is going to take architects and engineers, but it will also take builders and welders, insulators and electricians. Creating a green recovery will require tremendous growth in the building and construction trades, and in the design and planning functions that support that work.

The economic and environmental challenges that we face as a nation are first and foremost design challenges that will require us to re-imagine and reinvent how we build our prosperity, and to translate that into bricks and mortar in stronger and more vibrant communities. Government will set the road signs with smart energy and climate policies, but it will be the private sector that provides the engine to move this new economy in the right direction. To that end, the entire debate around the economic recovery, the coming energy bill, and eventual climate change legislation will be a tremendous boon for architects, provided the profession continues to offer the kind of forward thinking leadership in changing our energy use that is embodied in the Architecture 2030 challenge. Who would have thought that better building codes would save the planet, but here we are trying to figure out how to build a better future and America finds it desperately needs the skills of visionary architects.

Q: Our auto industry is badly struggling. My hope is that this will lead the carmakers to really look to the future, invent new kinds of green vehicles, and if they fold, perhaps this will lead more Americans to rethink transportation methods and maybe try public transit. Is this at all realistic? What do you see as the future for our auto industry?

Podesta: I believe that there is great potential to expand the use of public transit in the U.S. The record price for gasoline in 2008 led a record number of people to use public transportation. This trend continued during the second half of the year even as gasoline prices declined and unemployment grew. For this trend to continue, transit must become more affordable and accessible. President Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act should reinforce this trend because it includes $8.4 billion for transit projects. ARRA also includes $8 billion for high speed rail projects that should get people off of highways and on to high speed trains.

The future of the U.S. auto industry depends on whether Chrysler and General Motors will adequately revise their business plans so that providing additional assistance to them is a good use of taxpayers’ money. At this juncture, Chrysler has 30 days to make a deal with Italian automaker Fiat or face a government sponsored bankruptcy. GM has 55 days to restructure its operations, including financial concessions by bondholders and workers, or face a government sponsored bankruptcy. In the event of bankruptcy, the U.S. government would guarantee warranties and service contracts.

These companies may be able to survive a government sponsored bankruptcy and restructuring if they focus on building the super fuel efficient vehicles of the future. For instance, next year GM plans to sell the Chevrolet Volt, a “plug in hybrid electric vehicle.” A battery engine will power this car for 40 miles—an average day’s driving—before it switches over to gasoline. A home outlet can recharge the Volt overnight, and even using today’s coal based energy, this would cut carbon emissions from cars by 30% when compared to internal combustion gas engines. These cars would be in great demand in the U.S. and overseas when oil prices rise as a product of our, and the world’s, economic recovery. They will even save consumers money at today’s prices, and they will provide the industry a way to decouple their business growth from the growth of carbon emissions.

The auto industry has been a major driver in creating the good jobs and decent wages that built America’s middle class. We all have a stake in the US auto industry’s survival. But in exchange, these companies must also commit to implementing their plans to build the Volt and other super efficient and alternative fuel cars. In addition, they ought to cease their opposition to California’s motor vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards. Instead, they should strive to meet these standards as soon as possible to reduce global warming pollution and reduce oil use, and become part of the solution for building a low carbon economy. Such measures are the road to recovery for the Detroit Three, and for the US economy.

Mazria: This is what appears to be happening at the moment: auto fleet mileage is increasing, hybrids and plug-in hybrids are moving to market and public transit ridership is up dramatically. Will the trend hold after the recession ends? I am optimistic because global oil is peaking and we are finally taking climate change seriously.

Watch the video of their recent presentation.

Get National Building Museum news.