Sustainability Roundtable Q&A
For the Greener Good
After the program, Ivy and Dimick answered selected questions from audience members and online visitors submitted through an online Q&A Forum:
1. With respect to the AIA plan to jump-start the economy with a focus on a federal program for building for energy efficiency, it seems to me that it is a kind of hubris to assume that the environment will give us time to "repair" our cities, or make them sufficiently green by half-measures. Half measures will not serve the reality; would you entertain the idea that we need a Manhattan Project approach to not only refurbishing existing cities, but a program for new town development as well? Properly managed, could not such an all out program sustain a strong economy for a very long time?
Dennis Dimick: Of course. Half measures will not work, we need to make radical change in the way we generate and use energy. In terms of buildings: significantly improved efficiency standards on all new buildings, insulation, roofs, appliances, windows, heating and cooling, and lighting. We need incentives to refurbish existing buildings in a similar manner. Land use patterns must change. Building car-based exurbia to the far horizon has long ago gone beyond any realm of sanity. In addition to re-inhabiting close-in urban spaces, perhaps by building on the parking lots of dead malls and revivifying intra-city regional passenger rail, we can begin to change the way we live and move. Mixed use zoning is very important. Why not build communities where people both live and work? This is not just about buildings, it's also about what kinds of public spaces we create, and whether we create spaces that people want to walk to. We shouldn't have to travel to the cities of Europe, e.g., to find urban public spaces we admire and want to be a part of. When are we going to create public spaces in this country that we are proud of and want to inhabit without our cars?
Robert Ivy: We know the government is addressing the problem—the DOE’s Weatherization Assistance Program, which aims to reduce the amount of energy used to heat and cool homes, has been in place for 30 years. The stimulus package that passed on February 17 provided more than $8 billion for increasing efficiency in government housing federal buildings, and allocated nearly $10 billion to modernize public schools’ HVAC systems.
But the questioner asks, are measures like these sufficient? Given that Earth’s atmosphere is already saturated with the greenhouse gas CO2, and that the global population is growing rapidly as life expectancy is increasing, aren’t more drastic measures required?
Yes. The Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) estimates that the construction industry is responsible for more than a third of all greenhouse gas emissions. A recent article in Scientific American quotes the organization as saying that greening existing buildings and mandating new construction follow best practices could reduce the amount of carbon emissions produced by buildings from 2.2 billion tons to 1.7 billion tons annually.
So drastic action, in the form of legislation, is required. However, the Manhattan Project metaphor is flawed. That effort was characterized by extreme secrecy and total government control. The struggle against disastrous climate change will be much more “open source.” NGOs and private companies will produce key innovations.
For example, Habitat for Humanity’s Porchscapes development, planned for Fayetteville, Arkasas, will use Low Impact Development (LID) to turn the entire project into sustainable watershed. The high-density project is a pilot for the LEED Neighborhood Development program. What’s interesting about this example is that LID, an unorthodox way of reducing the amount of energy used and waste produced in a community, is actually illegal in most municipalities. In this case, the NGO is ahead of legislation. Many other examples of cutting-edge city-scale sustainable projects can be found in the November/December issue of Greensource Magazine.
We see that, while visionary legislation, tax incentives, and government funding will be required to effectively slow or stop climate change, the Manhattan Project should not be the metaphor that guides our work. Government housing, from the former Soviet bloc to urban housing projects in the US, has been historically fraught with problems. It’s possible that, while government should lead the charge with legislation, tax incentives, and funding, the design and construction of these new green cities should not be the sole charge of government.
2. I work for lululemon athletica, an incredible eco-conscious yoga-inspired apparel store. Our community legacies are focused on being environmentally friendly -- e.g., we use green cleaning products, reclaimed wood flooring in our stores, environmentally safe paint, and we recycle at every store (we even give our guests incentives to recycle with us!). My questions are: what is the green future of manufacturing, store design and store operations? Do you have any suggestions for us about keeping green?
Dimick: It all goes back to the kinds of energy we use. How green you are comes directly from the kinds of energy used to perform or support your activities. You are green if you use a clothesline to dry your clothes. An electric clothes dryer powered by solar energy is much "greener" than one powered by electric from coal. How green we are is tied directly to the carbon intensity of the energy sources we use.
Ivy: While the growth of the green economy is encouraging, it’s important to be vigilant against greenwashing. At its heart, sustainability is about consuming less—buying organic cotton t-shirts or a hybrid SUV isn’t much of a concession to the environment. That said, there are simple ways to keep green. Using reclaimed wood, as you note in the question, is a good start. When that’s not possible, specify Forest Stewardship Council wood or recycled metals. Weatherizing your facility will conserve, on average, one third on energy costs. Automated lights, and blinds equipped with photocells “know” when to activate. These can reduce energy use by decreasing solar heat gain and lighting costs.
But ultimately, as noted writer and environmental scholar Bill McKibben says, real change will come in the form of legislation: “You can’t make the math work one light bulb at a time.”
3. Americans, I hope, are starting to realize that we are not in this world alone, that even if we make dramatic changes we will also need the rest of the world to do so in order to address the threats of climate change. What countries should we look to as role models for how we all should behave? What countries will pose the biggest challenge to a worldwide effort to address our environmental needs?
Dimick: Germany has been leading the way in solar. Other European nations like Denmark have been installing wind. I'd say that the United States is the biggest obstacle. Unless the citizens of the United States are willing to demand change from their elected representatives, nothing will change. The world is thirsty for leadership, and this comes from the people. If we say we will do nothing unless other countries like China and India cut back their carbon emissions, nothing will happen. We set an example and others will follow. Nations like India and China are only trying to build their economies, what we can also do is use our ingenuity to create energy efficient and low carbon technology that others can use.
4. "Green jobs" seem to be trendy in all the debate over the stimulus package, the future of our economy, etc. How realistic do you believe it is that enough green jobs are being created to make an impact - both on the environment and on the economy? What do you think the best green jobs are - best in all senses of the word
Dimick: In my mind green jobs are jobs all in service to getting us off fossil fuels and getting us onto a path towards cleaner, more carbon free energy. This means teachers who teach workers, this means designers, manufacturers, distributors, communicators, financers, anyone whose work is contributing to building a new economy based on low-carbon energy.
Ivy: A recent U.S. Green Building Council press release cites studies indicating that business owners and home-buyers are more and more likely to buy or build green, even in a down economy. According to USGBC, the green building market should increase from about $40 billion in 2008 to more than $100 billion in 2013.
Furthermore, the stimulus package is expected to save or create some three million jobs, many of which will be “green-collar.” The president and the secretary of state have expressed interest in funding job-training programs like Green For All. Enrollment in environmental studies programs is on the rise. BusinessWeek reports that there could be as many as 40 million jobs in the renewable energy and energy efficiency industries by 2030, up from some nine million today.
So yes, the green collar movement will affect the economy, and it will by definition affect the environment.
5. My sense is that Mother Nature will ultimately force humanity to change our ways rather than people taking sufficient deliberate and effective action to avert significant worldwide disaster. How do you feel about this?
Dimick: It may be that the only way human civilization is catalyzed to respond to the challenges we face is to face the ecological equivalent of "airplanes flying into buildings." One hopes not.
Signs of this already emerge if we are willing to see. Of course we hear of arctic ice melting, but we also see increased frequency of floods and droughts. Southern Australia is deep into a decade-long drought, and California itself is in a multi-year drought. We already see significant loss of snowpack in western U.S. mountains. The big unknown is what impact on rainfall and temperature patterns over the great grain growing regions of the world as the arctic ice cap melts.
That said we are capable of change if we are willing to change. We can choose to use the fossil fuels we have been given as a gift to help buy us time to build a new energy future that no longer depends on them. Or we can continue on the path we are, burn up these fuels until they are gone, and then we will have to change not because we chose to but because nature forced us to. I'd much rather be in a position of deciding what kind of future we create.
Watch the video of the For the Greener Good: Sustainability Roundtable discussion.
 |
For the Greener Good lecture series is presented by The Home Depot Foundation. The Museum's online Q&A Forums are made possible by a grant from the U.S. Institute of Museum and Library Services. |
