b l a s t u l a reblog++

We all see sustainability comparisons regularly: “…if Americans stopped buying red, round clown noses, they’d save as much energy as it takes to make all the pogo sticks used worldwide.”

These are fun. Sometimes these are clever. Unfortunately, these are also almost always completely useless, for the following reasons:

1) Often, we don’t know what the folks making the comparison mean by their terms or how they got their numbers, and thus, whether those numbers are reliable. The frequency with which numbers appear to be kind of arbitrary is pretty alarming. Many are essentially just bits of folk wisdom within the environmental movement.

2) Different comparisons often count the same things in different ways (what’s known as the boundary condition problem) — so you get architects claiming that green buildings could save 40% of CO2 and energy geeks claiming that energy efficiency could save 35%, but that doesn’t mean that green buildings and energy efficiency together could save 75%, because they’re both counting many of the same things in different ways.

3) Even when they’re counting different things in the same way, comparisons are confusing. I once considered writing a post about how we were running out of SUVs to take off the road — because of solutions proposed in 20 or so different stories I had recently read. Every one of those stories used the same comparison (”X would be like taking # of millions of SUVs off the road”), which made them all paradoxically more confusing and blurry… plus how many times can we take the same SUVs off the same roads?

Even for numbers people, which many of us aren’t, these things are confusing. But I think there’s a real need to identify a common set of absolute measurements (tons of CO2s, watts, gdp, for instance) and a set of agreed-upon ways to describe the boundaries you’re assuming when claim certain impacts, so we’re all measuring apples against apples.

For instance, in just the last four days, I got two emails with the following assertions: that the operation of buildings counts for 60-80% of cities’ greenhouse gas emissions in North America, and that driving cars is responsible for 45% of the average U.S. family’s emissions.

Now, there is probably a way to slice each of these assertions so that it is sort of true. We could, for instance, decide not to count any economic activity (from farming to manufacturing) that happens outside a city’s boundaries, or measure any of the embedded carbon in its buildings and infrastructure (in other words, just count what we’re emitting right now, not what it’s taken to build what we have or what we’ll build in the future), while counting all activities within those buildings as part of operations and maybe get to a 60-80% share of carbon footprints from building operations. Similarly, we could choose not to measure all sorts of other things but to measure all of the lifetime impacts of owning a car and maybe come up with a 45% share of a family’s emissions from driving, but you’d have to really distort the usual picture (like, say, assigning a family’s agricultural climate footprint to the farmer who grew their food) to get there.

Both of these numbers came from smart, honest sources, but in too many cases, advocates choose to measure different things in different ways in order to get to a number that supports their preferred climate action, or just see putting these sorts of statistics into the world in purely utilitarian terms: if it gets people to act, why quibble about the details?

I see these things differently. If these numbers are going to mean anything, and be of any use, they need to refer to the same things, or at least the same kind of things. Otherwise we risk distorting our understanding of the problem so much that we will be unable to find actual solutions, or waste time emphasizing solutions that don’t actually help much.

That means we need to learn our business with these numbers.

If you have a favorite climate impacts measurement tool, I invite you to share it — and the argument in its favor — in the comments below.

Photo credit: flickr/ansik, Creative Commons license.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Alex Steffen in Columns at 10:07 AM)

Originally
from Worldchanging: Bright Green

by Alex Steffen


reBlogged

on Jan 1, 1970, 8:00AM

Originally by Alex Steffen from Worldchanging: Bright Green on January 1, 1970, 9:00am

Posted under reblog environment

Each day, a plethora of new media arrives at our Worldchanging Headquarters in Seattle — from books on climate change to magazines on women’s rights, invitations to the latest innovation-focused conferences to pamphlets and products offering new ways for solving the world’s problems. When you do our kind of work you get to see a lot of what’s out there, and the spectrum ranges from batty to brilliant. But if we didn’t see all of it, we wouldn’t recognize the best of it when it hit our desks. Each month, we’ll sift through what we received and share our favorites with you.

Our Favorite January Resources

Sustainable Urbanism: Urban Design With Nature

Resilient Cities: Responding to Peak Oil and Climate Change

Reusing the Resource: Adventures in Ecological Wastewater Recycling

Award Winning Green Roof Designs

Post Carbon Cities: Planning for Energy and Climate Uncertainty

Design for Water: Rainwater Harvesting, Stormwater Catchment, and Alternate Water Reuse

The Endless City

The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth’s Climate (Science Essentials)

Electric Water: The Emerging Revolution in Water and Energy

Atlantic Monthly

The Option of Urbanism: Investing in a New American Dream

Technologies for Sustainable Growth - Bright Green

What new media have you been consuming since the new year started? Share below.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Resource - Stuff at 5:44 PM)

Originally
from Worldchanging: Bright Green

by WorldChanging Team


reBlogged

on Jan 1, 1970, 8:00AM

Originally by WorldChanging Team from Worldchanging: Bright Green on January 1, 1970, 9:00am

Posted under reblog environment

Oceans are the new atmosphere.

What we mean is, that concern for the state of the oceans and the potential impacts of the on-going catastrophic collapse of ocean ecosystems is reaching a pitch that we haven’t seen on any other environmental issue other than the build-up of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. We don’t live in them – many of us have never even seen them — but we’re handily trashing them. And the state of the oceans is inextricably linked to the state of the planet as a whole.

Simply put, if the oceans crash, we crash, and the signs of impending collapse are everywhere. On the other hand, it’s becoming clearer that new solutions and policies may actually give us the capacity to understand and prevent that crash, if we have the will.

Throughout recent history, most human impacts on the oceans have stemmed from a dramatic misunderstanding, both of their value and of their limits. For all the romance we’ve assigned them in art and literature, in reality we’ve used the Earth’s oceans as waste dumps; as all-you-can-eat buffets; and as highways for global exploration, commerce and warfare.

The vast dead zones now spreading out from our coastlines appear to be largely the result of the vast rivers of chemicals, fertilizer runoff and sewage we’re pouring into the sea. The mountains of more solid and buoyant waste (like household garbage) that many communities still dump directly into the nearest ocean are accumulating in shocking amounts, and degrading with unknown results.

But most troubling of all is ocean acidification, the result of relying on the oceans to absorb the CO2 that we spew into the atmosphere. There is increasing evidence that the problem of ocean acidification — or “sour seas,” as we heard it called a while back — is worsening rapidly, foreshadowing potential impacts that could be catastrophic for all life on Earth.

As Alex has explained before, the threat of acidification is one of the main problems with many proposed geoengineering schemes meant to mitigate climate change. Some geoengineering ideas aim to lower the surface temperature of the Earth, for instance, by pumping huge amounts of small particles into the upper atmosphere. But these plans would do nothing about the CO2 we’re still pumping into the atmosphere, much of which winds up dissolved in the ocean, making it yet more acid. Other plans are even more sketchy, such as the idea of “seeding” the ocean with algal blooms to trigger the uptake of more CO2 into the ocean. Proponents say this CO2 will be safely sequestered: but both scientists and governments disagree and have called for an end to these efforts.

The clear answer is a massive and aggressive planetary effort to first eliminate excess greenhouse gas emissions, and then begin pulling CO2 from the atmosphere through safe, terrestrial methods, such as afforestation and biochar. This should be combined, scientists say, with strong measures designed to curb the sorts of pollutants now killing huge portions of the ocean floor — a problem that may well worsen as climate change continues to raise sea levels and increase flooding.

Although we often treat oceans (or the parts closest to us) as though they have defined borders and governing bodies, in reality they are, well, fluid. Like nearly every other system impacted by climate change, there is no fair distribution of cause and effect. Rather, the entire protective effort is only as good as the worst offender, and the destruction caused by some of us touches the lives of all of us.

That is why this year, as we work toward a new global climate deal, we also need to start pursuing a new global oceans deal. The law of the sea for ocean resources must be strengthened. It will take an unprecedented intergovernmental pact to recognize and chart a path towards a globally equitable and sustainable relationship to the extraction of food, minerals, oil and other substances. We need planetary agreements on fisheries’ limits, limits that recognize that fisheries collapses have gone non-linear. We need to create and enforce marine sanctuaries, fund new research into fisheries and new approaches to ocean science and put what we already know about sustainable coastal development to work for people living in these most sensitive regions.

International alliances already recognize the importance of this task. Among existing agreements and accords are those outlined by the APEC nations’ Bali Plan of Action Towards Healthy Oceans and Coasts for the Sustainable Growth and Prosperity of the Asia-Pacific Community (PDF):

We, the APEC Ocean-related Ministers, reaffirm our commitment to progress the 2002 Seoul Oceans Declaration by taking, subject to available resources and capabilities, substantial and concrete steps to balance sustainable management of marine resources and the marine environment with economic growth.

We, therefore, are determined to work domestically, regionally, and internationally, in the near to mid-term (2006-2009), towards:

I. ensuring the sustainable management of the marine environment and its resources;

II. providing for sustainable economic benefits from the oceans; and,

III. enabling sustainable development of coastal communities.

But, as the Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts and Islands notes as a main focus of its work, the problem with managing the world’s seas stems largely from the fact that, as one of the Forum’s project outlines states (PDF), “To date there is no consensus on the various legal and policy issues surrounding marine areas beyond national jurisdiction, and there are many different options being elaborated and discussed about how these issues should be resolved.” It is clear that we need a more complete agreement on how to govern, use and preserve the oceans.

As we urge our leaders to work toward this vision, one of the best things we can do as planetary citizens is to arm ourselves with knowledge and appreciation of these awesome bodies of salt water and the worlds below the waves. We need more people around the world to learn about oceans, what they are, and why they matter.

But how can we spread marine education in a way that’s enchanting and accessible even to the landlocked? One of the newest additions to the Google Earth family, Google Ocean, is starting to point out what’s possible. As The New York Times’ Andrew Revkin describes the downloadable app:

The new version of Google Earth allows users to mouse around under and over the seas, click on video clips of hydrothermal vents, read up on which seafoods are being harvested unsustainably, look at marine dead zones and sanctuaries and the like.

Visitors can create their own narrated, illustrated tours of a neighborhood, scuba excursion or honeymoon. They can also now visually scroll through time, backtracking through sequences of satellite-imagery to see how coasts, forests, cities and other features of the planet are changing under the expanding imprint of ever more people eager for ever more stuff.

Will virtual exploration truly open the eyes and minds of people wide enough to incite them to fight for better ocean policy? The journey from keyboard to kayak, or computer screen to concern for coral reefs seems daunting. But it’s certainly a step in the right direction.

Yet we need much, much more. A touch of celebrity in the form of a Special Adviser on Oceans post in the Obama administration, for example, certainly couldn’t hurt. More journalism, more education, more advocacy — all are needed. But somehow, we’ve got to come to grips with the fact that the planet we live on doesn’t stop at the beach.

Photo: A visitor admires the Philippine coral reef display at the California Academy of Sciences. The 25-foot tall installation, which debuted in August 2008, is the world’s deepest living coral reef display. Photo credit: flickr/japes18, CC license.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Alex Steffen and Julia Levitt in Features at 8:21 AM)

Originally
from Worldchanging: Bright Green

by Alex Steffen and Julia Levitt


reBlogged

on Jan 1, 1970, 8:00AM

Originally by Alex Steffen and Julia Levitt from Worldchanging: Bright Green on January 1, 1970, 9:00am

Posted under reblog environment

What’s the smarter solution for bringing mobility to 21st century cities: bus rapid transit (BRT) or light rail? With questions this big, it’s important to consider all the perspectives.

A team of researchers at the World Resources Institute (WRI) recently produced a report that goes against the grain. WRI analyzed and compared BRT and light rail as two options for Maryland’s Purple Line Project, a 16-mile transit corridor that will connect the D.C. suburbs. In January, the Institute came down in favor of BRT, with a statement announcing that “enhanced buses … would cost less, offer similar services, and fight global warming better than light-rail cars.”

Our main question related not to what’s in the study, but rather, what seems to be left out. It’s a common observation that light rail delivers benefit beyond transit alone, in the form of transit-oriented development that springs up as a result of developers, business owners and homebuyers seeking proximity to the train stations.

The team at WRI was happy to share their take on this and other issues. I interviewed the study’s lead author, Greg Fuhs, and WRI’s senior transport engineer Dario Hidalgo, about BRT/LRT, transit prejudices, and how other cities can apply this analysis to their own planning process.

Julia Levitt: In your study, you found that BRT outperformed light rail in cutting overall CO2 emissions. How did you come to that conclusion?

Greg Fuhs: Our study actually corroborates what is already stated in the Maryland Transit Administration’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS): that BRT would be better on CO2 emissions for the Purple Line. This is a surprising finding to many, because it is often assumed that switching to an electric system such as light rail would reduce CO2 emissions. However, it is very important to consider the electricity source, and in our region the dominant source is currently coal-fired power plants.

So, while energy consumption from roadways would decrease with introduction of either light rail or BRT, for light rail the resulting emissions reduction is not enough to counterbalance the effect caused by the high electricity CO2 emission factor. In fact, CO2 emissions are projected to increase from business as usual with a light rail Purple Line. While this could change in the future with a major and permanent shift to low-carbon energy sources, for the foreseeable future we would likely continue to see higher CO2 emissions from light rail in this case.

JL: Critics of your report have pointed out that in North America, many people own cars, which gives them a choice that many riders overseas don’t have, and that people who have the choice of driving a personal vehicle are often inclined to find light rail cars an acceptable alternative, but are less likely to ride buses. What’s your take on this argument?

Dario Hidalgo: It is a common perception that a light rail system would attract more riders than BRT, and that is reflected in the demand estimations incorporated in the DEIS. However, I would raise two points:

First, in this case it is not at all certain that there would be a large enough increase in ridership to justify the significantly higher cost of light rail. For example, if we take just MTA’s ridership estimates, for the “Medium Investment” LRT and BRT alternatives we see a projection of 62,600 and 51,800 riders per day, respectively. That’s only about 20% more riders for light rail, yet the projected capital cost of the light rail system is more than twice that of BRT ($1.2 billion vs. $579 million), and also includes higher annual operation and maintenance costs.

Second, it is worth drawing a distinction between “buses” and “BRT.” The concept of bus rapid transit is not well understood in the United States, where there are only a few systems currently in operation. In reality, BRT would be designed more like a light rail than a standard bus system, with features like dedicated lanes, signal priority, pre-pay boarding, elevated station platforms, and efficient and comfortable vehicles that make it much more efficient and appealing than a traditional bus service. For the Purple Line, BRT would also offer travel times that are competitive with light rail. With a well-designed, well-operated, and well-advertised BRT in place, there is good reason to believe that many people would use and appreciate the system.

JL: Although your report shows that BRT will cost about half the amount of a light rail system, other studies show that light rail systems, because they are permanent structures, do more to encourage transit-oriented development. Was TOD a factor in the EMBARQ study? Do you think that BRT can facilitate and encourage dense development at a similar level?

GF: We did not look specifically at the TOD factor in our study. However, one cannot assume that transit-oriented development would be sparked by light rail but not BRT. For example, a recent study by the American Public Transportation Association looking at this issue considers both rail and traditional bus systems (although unfortunately it does not look at BRT specifically), and indicates that both can lead to significant positive land use changes. In any case, there is no reason to assume that LRT has a greater impact on land use than high-quality BRT if the systems provide similar travel times, capacities, and overall quality of service, as would be the case for the Purple Line. Moreover, developers can benefit from the shorter implementation time that BRT projects bring as compared to LRT.

DH: Also, regarding permanence, this is a somewhat relative concept. For example, there were thousands of miles of tram networks in the U.S. by 1940; much of this system was dismantled before 1970 with the rise of the automobile and suburbia. The forces behind development are not limited to the technology of transit vehicles, but also depend on factors such as accessibility, enabling policies, and background economics.

JL: Do you feel that the EMBARQ study comparing BRT/LRT can be easily applied to other regions and cities, or is this evaluation case-specific? What factors do you suggest other cities consider as top priorities when making their own decisions about public transportation?

GF: While certain general principles may apply to multiple locations (e.g., public transit is generally an asset to the community and its development should be encouraged), in reality every evaluation like this must be case-specific. After all, even if different locations have similar demographic and/or geographic characteristics, every local population has different needs and preferences and faces unique transportation challenges and political circumstances.

In considering public transportation projects, the first priority must be to determine if there is a need for a transit system to move people within the proposed corridor, and the entire decisionmaking process should be conducted in close consultation with the affected communities. Other important considerations include determining how much benefit a transit system could bring in terms of improved mobility, greater access to transport, incentives for economic development, and improved environmental quality. Further, and particularly in these lean economic times, the cost-effectiveness of the proposed system is a critical factor (especially in terms of competing for scarce state and federal funding). There is also evidence that urban infrastructure projects entail high risk of not meeting preliminary demand and cost estimates, and thus not realizing the projected cost-effectiveness. Such risks should be considered in the analysis and decision making process, but so far this has not been the case for the Purple Line project. Our study does attempt to quantify this risk by providing a sensitivity analysis of Purple Line cost and ridership projections, and we recommend that similar efforts be undertaken in future transit proposals.

In our study specifically, we emphasize that in this time of financial and climate crisis, cost-effectiveness, risk, and greenhouse gas emissions are especially important factors to consider. And in these three cases, BRT comes out as the better option for the Purple Line, as can be the case in other projects. Going forward, we would encourage decision makers and communities not to select a project based on perceptions, but on good analytics.

Photo: The bus rapid transit system along Insurgentes Avenue in Mexico City, a project of EMBARQ. Source: flickr/World Resources Institute Staff, CC license.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Julia Levitt in Columns at 10:22 AM)

Originally
from Worldchanging: Bright Green

by Julia Levitt


reBlogged

on Jan 1, 1970, 8:00AM

Originally by Julia Levitt from Worldchanging: Bright Green on January 1, 1970, 9:00am

Posted under reblog environment

Pattie Maes of MIT’s Media Lab wants to give you a sixth sense. You probably want it… but it’s still a little clunky right now. And requires you to wear plastic market caps on your finger. But it’s really cool.

Maes reminds us that we pull in information about the world with our five senses, and make decisions based on this sensory input. These days, we often have an additional sense - our ability to use networked information to add to our knowledge. At TED, we’d really like the ability to meet someone and immediately Google to figure out who they are. Or at the supermarket, we’d like to overlay data about environmental and corporate responsibility on top of the products we buy. We can access this information, but it’s inconvenient and socially awkward to do so.

The solution to social awkwardness? Hang some devices around your neck and stick colored caps onto four fingers. The system includes a wearable camera, a mirror and a battery-powered projector. This allows the wearer - currently grad student and hacker Pranav Mistry - to project information onto surfaces. He’s able to manipulate this information by moving his colored fingers - they re tracked by the camera and allow Pranav to manipulate the data, driven by his mobile phone.

The system looks a bit like Jeff Han’s multitouch interface and the Microsoft Surface computing, but points out that this is a solution that works on any surface. You might use it to reframe your shopping experience, projecting a rating from Amazon onto books in books in a bookstore, or adding reviews from a favorite critic. You might enhance a newspaper with a projected video clip, or project a word cloud associated with someone onto their chest as you talked with them. And, of course, it’s trivial to project a watch on your arm.

There’s no doubt in my mind that this is an exceedingly cool hack. Whether anyone will be wearing to wear it outside of the lab probably has something to do with how it’s designed, and how we construct social rules about what’s acceptable and not to enhance with information in a real-world environment. I can’t really imagine having the ability to project information onto people’s chests being socially acceptable - but I would love for it to become true.

More about the ideas behind this interface - which Maes declined to give a catchy name - at her page on “fluid interfaces“.

This post is part of a series from the TED 2009 conference held in Long Beach, California from February 4-8th. You can read other posts in the series here, and the TED site will release video from the talk in the coming weeks or months. You may also want to follow the conference via Twitter or through other blogs tagged as TED2009 on Technorati.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

Originally by Ethan Zuckerman from Worldchanging: Bright Green

Posted under reblog innovation

China and the United States should focus on their similarities, rather than their differences, to jumpstart bilateral climate negotiations, a pair of former White House staffers recommended yesterday.

Unable to agree on each other’s role in addressing climate change, the talks between the world’s two largest greenhouse gas emitters have remained in gridlock since the United States excused itself from the Kyoto Protocol in 2001.

To ease into a new era of policymaking, both countries should focus on popular initiatives that could still significantly reduce emissions, such as shared efforts to develop electric vehicles, green buildings, and carbon sequestration projects, the former staffers said in a Brookings Institution report.

“Climate change evokes philosophical disagreements, whereas clean energy evokes economic opportunities,” said co-author David Sandalow, who served as associate director for the global environment in former U.S. President Bill Clinton’s Council on Environmental Quality.

The report comes a few weeks before U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s first visit to China in her new position. Clinton, who is expected to discuss climate change, will likely set a new tone for U.S foreign relations toward China.

Rather than grapple with the most controversial issues in the climate change debate - trade competition, coal use, and emission targets - a focus on mutually beneficial, large-scale projects would “capture the public’s imagination” for further emission reductions, said Sandalow, a Brookings Institution senior fellow who is rumored to earn a new position in President Barack Obama’s administration.

The two countries could also strengthen pre-existing local partnerships that exchange technology and expertise in a range of climate-related industries. For example, Denver, Colorado, and the Chinese city of Chongqing have joined forces to develop electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles. These partnerships currently suffer from “information barriers” and a lack of funding, the report said.

Other countries, especially Japan and the European Union, have also provided services to help develop green buildings, electric vehicles, and carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology in China. The United States now may interfere with the other countries’ efforts if it suddenly increases its attention, said Elizabeth Economy, director for Asia studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

“I don’t mind duplicating their efforts, but we don’t want to undermine them,” Economy said. “Maybe we should look ahead, [for instance] at India, for issues where China is already under way.”

China has focused much of its climate change policies on improving energy efficiency, with significantly greater renewable energy investments as well. Its leadership has opposed binding emission reductions because much of the country is still developing, and its per-capita emissions are much smaller than those of the United States and other developed nations.

“China has done a lot, but of course it’s not enough,” said Zhou Wenzhong, Chinese ambassador to the United States, at the Brookings report launch. “Our most urgent issue is to limit poverty and develop the economy for one-fifth of the world’s people.”

The administration of former U.S. President George W. Bush refused to rejoin international climate treaties until China also agreed to cut emissions. Obama has also stated that China should participate in global emission reduction efforts, but he has promised that the United States will lead in a new international agreement.

The United States and China, combined, contribute more than 40 percent of the world’s annual greenhouse gas emissions. World leaders such as United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon have requested that both countries increase their reduction commitments.

“Neither side is doing enough,” said Kenneth Lieberthal, a co-author of the Brookings report who served as senior director for Asia on President Clinton’s National Security Council. “Each of us plays a major role in the politics of this issue in either country, and none of us are very sensitive to that.”

In addition to the Brookings recommendations, the U.S.-based research group Asia Society released a roadmap yesterday for United States-Chinese climate cooperation.

The report, which U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu co-chaired before his selection, outlines several bold, sweeping changes to reduce both countries’ emissions. For instance, the report suggests greater investment in CCS from coal-fired power plants, a “smart” electrical grid, and broad deployment of wind and solar energy.

The Chinese government has requested that foreign governments provide greater technology transfers as part of an international climate regime. But China should still be more proactive in its requests during negotiations, Economy said.

“They don’t have the capacity to do what they really want to get done,” she said. “So [priorities] need to come from them.”

Ben Block is a staff writer with the Worldwatch Institute. He can be reached at bblock@worldwatch.org.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Ben Block in Climate Change at 11:40 AM)

Originally
from Worldchanging: Bright Green

by Ben Block


reBlogged

on Jan 1, 1970, 8:00AM

Originally by Ben Block from Worldchanging: Bright Green on January 1, 1970, 9:00am

Posted under reblog environment

I’m not usually impressed by people making products or buildings out of trash. Not because it isn’t a good idea — it clearly is — but because most such projects don’t scale well. They’re nice one-offs but can’t be set up for mass manufacturing. There are several exceptions, though, and I recently stumbled upon another one: the Casa Ecologica de Botellas Plasticas in Argentina.

I was on vacation, going to Cataratas Iguazu in northern Argentina to see the amazing waterfalls, and it just happened that next to my hotel out in the countryside was a sign saying “The House of Plastic Bottles! Visit it! Surprise yourself!” Always a sucker for a quirky roadside attraction, I trotted down the little dirt road through the trees to check it out. But when I arrived, I found that Alfredo Alberto Santa Cruz and his family have built a prototype for a modular-assembly, comfortable tropical home that costs next to nothing and diverts hundreds of two-liter plastic bottles from landfills in the process. What’s more, it seems like a design that will scale reasonably well, because it uses cheap common parts, can be built either cheap-and-temporary or sturdy-and-permanent, and can even pack flat and ship in a pickup truck.

Mr. Santa Cruz first got the idea when making his daughter a little playhouse in the front yard. The construction was surprisingly robust, so he thought “hey, I’m on to something!” and built a full-sized bedroom cottage with an actual bed, three chairs, shelves full of toy cars, a broom, an octopus mobile, and even a fake hanging plant … all out of plastic bottles with some wood framing and a few nuts and bolts!

  
bottle joint, and daughter’s playhouse

The walls were made from columns of two-liter bottles, some cut in half to slip over other ones that were screwed into the adjacent bottles, so that all joints were fat-end to fat-end, no necks. This avoided too much empty space and also made all bottles interlock (in addition to the screw connection). These columns were assembled into a wooden frame to form panels, and then the panels were twist-tied together with wire to assemble a house. Windows were made with CD jewel cases in a variety of color tints.

The family showed me how they could make the structure more sturdy if they chose, by filling out the fronts and backs of panels with concrete. Laying the panel flat and pouring concrete into it around the bottles is a cheap way to make concrete walls without forms, and using a fraction as much concrete as slab construction. The air in the bottles also makes the concrete wall insulative, just like Rastra and other pour-in-place insulated concrete forms. In northern Argentina’s mild climate, however, the walls of bare bottles were rather nice, because their translucence admits plenty of natural light, and the small gaps between bottles encourage natural ventilation. For the non-concrete walls, Mr. Santa Cruz also mentioned the idea of filling the bottles partly with earth, for a makeshift kind of fireproofness — a fire will first shrivel a bottle, then melt it enough that it splits and the earth spills out, smothering the fire. Pretty clever.

But I thought the most clever part was actually the roof, made of tetrapak boxes (the polyethylene and aluminum lined paperboard boxes that you get juice or wine or milk in), flattened into shingles and laid aluminum-side up for high solar reflectance. The resulting roof will keep you cooler than most American roofs! And the re-use of the tetrapaks is a particularly resourceful solution because while PET, the material used to make plastic bottles, is the most commonly recycled plastic, tetrapaks aren’t really recycled even in most of the developed world. (They are technically recyclable, but it’s not cost-effective for the vast majority of municipalities.)

Unfortunately, said Mr. Santa Cruz, the tetrapacks only last four to five years before falling apart from the rain. But he covers them with a layer of plastic bottles cut to look like terra cotta tiles, and guesses the combination should last 20 to 30 years, and still keep the sun’s heat off well. (If you put a second layer of bottles and tetrapak underneath them, it’d be insulated, too. But on the day I was there it didn’t need it.)

  
tetrapak roofing, from inside and from outside (showing both uncovered & covered)

I was pretty impressed with all of the ways plastic bottles were used throughout the house. The platform for the cottage stood on more two-liter bottles filled with earth and stacked horizontally rather than on end. Some bottles were chosen for their color or painted to make little flower patterns in the wall. Even the stairs were made by stacking the earth-filled bottles to different heights. And the Santa Cruz family even turned bottles into furnishings. The chairs and bed were constructed the same way the walls were, but with the stacked bottles placed parallel rather than serial to achieve structural strength across a wide area. (In fact, I found them sturdier than the normal wooden chair back in my hotel room.) Fairly thin cushions on top made the chairs decently comfortable. The family also made decorations and toys out of bottles, many of which were delightful and clever, including toy cars with working wheels. Alfredo’s father showed me how they made a robust broom by making the “straw” strands with slices of plastic bottle (which they made a little jig to cut effortlessly), twisted into tight springlike coils.

chair, curtain, decorations from bottles

There have been many houses made of bottles in the past, but they’ve almost always been glass bottles. The use of two-liter plastic bottles is a novel variation, enabling different constructions and uses. The modularity and transportability open up many possibilities. They system would be easy to load onto a truck for delivery to customers, or even to create a portable demonstration for local schools and towns.

Mr. Santa Cruz hasn’t gotten funding for his project, but he deserves to. Right now, he and his family fund the hobby by selling various knickknacks made of recycled bottles and cans. Even these are creatively done — they made unbreakable bags from the plastic straps used to bind crates, lumber, etc. during shipping; bracelets and purses from can pop-tops; cute little teapots and yerba mate pots made from old aluminum cans. These novelties are fun, but Mr. Santa Cruz’s building system could let a huge number of people all over the world create their own homes for next to nothing, and eliminate a ubiquitous source of waste at the same time.

I suggested he set up an account to receive PayPal donations for his work to take it to the next level, and he did. Donations can be sent to lacasaecologicadebotellas [at] hotmail [dot] com. If you speak Spanish, you can contact Mr. Santa Cruz at the same address. Even if you have no desire to contribute, he’s also interested in sharing ideas with people across the world.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Jeremy Faludi in Columns at 8:06 AM)

Originally
from Worldchanging: Bright Green

by Jeremy Faludi


reBlogged

on Jan 1, 1970, 8:00AM

Originally by Jeremy Faludi from Worldchanging: Bright Green on January 1, 1970, 9:00am

Posted under reblog environment, reblog innovation

What does it mean to “work in sustainability” in the 21st century?

Last weekend, I traveled to Vancouver and Whistler, British Columbia to attend the North American regional gathering paralleling the international sustainability conference Hallbarhet2009 in Australia. The event and its regional iterations attracted leading thinkers from around the world, including longtime Worldchanging ally Alan AtKisson. The purpose: to re-energize and more thoroughly network the professional sustainability community through dialogue and shared experience, and to work toward strategies for increasing the impact of their work.

It was great to have the chance to step back from my own day-to-day and view this nascent, changing field as a whole. While I feel privileged to do my own form of outreach from behind the screen here at Worldchanging, I feel like the colleagues I met in Canada are, by and large, out there on the front lines. By engaging with businesses from the small to the megacorp, steering leading NGOs and embedding in local and regional governments, these individuals are changing the course of how we as a society envision both business and policy. They hold the white-collar green jobs, the posts of experienced scholars and managers who hold advanced degrees and are well versed in strategy.

In Whistler, B.C., the combination of a several-years-old strategic vision for sustainability and the accelerated development associated with the upcoming 2010 Winter Olympic Games has fostered a convergence of political will, economic support and public engagement that’s unique, particularly in North America. During the weekend, we heard from a variety of leaders from the local business and government, including Whistler’s charismatic mayor Ken Melamed, and management-level representatives from the Games, the Whistler 2020 city plan, and the local economic cornerstone, the Whistler Blackcomb resort.

Pictured: Whistler village. Top photo: Vancouver, taken from Stanley Park.
Photos by author

There is definitely progressive work being done here. As part of its mission to leave a lasting legacy of sustainability for future Olympic Games, the Vancouver Olympic Committee has included green building standards, environmental stewardship, and social inclusiveness into its model. Whistler Blackcomb has an aggressive timeline for achievements in zero waste, clean energy and more. For example, by 2010, the resort expects to complete a local micro-hydro project capable of meeting all of the resort’s power needs, as well as to install rooftop windmills on most of its small restaurants. Of course, there are still limits. When asked about the problem of travel-related CO2 emissions generated by the resort’s two million annual guests, Whistler Blackcomb’s mountain planning and environmental resource manager, Arthur DeJong, replied that the resort’s sustainability plan doesn’t extend beyond the town’s borders.

Each vision combined distinct economic and social goals with a sustainability plan. But it seemed like in this setting, there was consensus on at least a meta-level: in order for these plans to succeed with a majority of stakeholders, they must be as practical and as profitable as the unsustainable models they replace. Whether for a business, for an event, or for an entire community, achieving sustainability requires careful strategy around a clear long-term goal. In Whistler, the stakeholders adhere to the framework developed by the NGO The Natural Step, which we’ve discussed before. But whatever your methodology, without a practical argument, it’s nearly impossible to gain willing participation from all sectors of society and economy. And without engagement at all levels, the plan cannot be sustainable.

To put it another way, while there is no question that a bright green economic recovery will involve green-collar jobs at the industrial level, getting us there will also take a new kind of boardroom leadership. In the next 20 years, I hope to see many of the same people I met in Canada earn seats at the heads of these tables.

So here’s to an enormous – but increasingly possible — task at hand for sustainability professionals everywhere.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Julia Levitt in Columns at 2:59 PM)

Originally
from Worldchanging: Bright Green

by Julia Levitt


reBlogged

on Jan 1, 1970, 8:00AM

Originally by Julia Levitt from Worldchanging: Bright Green on January 1, 1970, 9:00am

Posted under reblog environment

As a complement to my previous post, those of you interested in exploring the curring edge of public sector innovation will want to make your way to DC at the end of March for the inaugural Government 2.0 Camp. I would be there myself if I wasn’t already scheduled to be in Europe. Here’s a clip from their site:

Government 2.0 Camp is the unconference about using social media tools and Web 2.0 technologies to create a more effective, efficient and collaborative U.S. government on all levels (local, state, and federal).

Government 2.0 Camp will bring together the leading thinkers from government, academia and industry to share Government 2.0 initiatives that are already in process and collaborate about how to leverage social media tools and Web 2.0 technologies to create a more collaborate, efficient and effective government — Government 2.0.

Government 2.0 Camp is the inaugural event of Government 2.0 Club, a newly-launched national organization that creates opportunities for government, academia and industry to share ideas and solutions for leveraging social media tools and Web 2.0 technologies to create a more collaborate, efficient and effective government.

Originally
from Wikinomics

by Anthony D. Williams


reBlogged

on Feb 2, 2009, 7:07PM

Originally by Anthony D. Williams from Wikinomics on February 2, 2009, 8:07pm

Posted under reblog wikinomics

I had an interesting chat this morning with a colleague who is trying to get wikinomics infused into the culture and operations of the United Nations and finding it tough going so far.

Like many observers of the international scene, I find it frustrating to watch international organizations like the United Nations fail to shake-off the sclerosis and bureaucratic inertia that have marred attempts to get anywhere near meeting the millennium development goals by 2015. As my colleague rightly pointed out, there was so much optimism surrounding the Rio Earth Summit in 1992–a time when the United Nations had a much more positive public profile and, seemingly at least, the clout to make things happen. No more.

Described by my colleague as ???closed and insular,??? the UN is quickly losing its convening power and ultimately its relevance in addressing the global challenges that matter. Its power and authority have been usurped; by the US???s unilateralism on one hand, and by a multitude of more nimble and innovative stakeholder networks that have emerged to fill the leadership void???networks that compete with the UN and other international organizations for attention, loyalty and funds. If there was ever a time when the UN needed to embrace open source principles, this is it.

To be fair to the many good people who work hard for the UN, they are hardly operating in a benign environment. Eight years of neo-conservative attacks and unfavorable news media coverage have denigrated its image and perhaps even eroded its confidence. It???s also fair to say that making consensus decisions with 192 members on the board of directors is hardly a walk in the park, particularly when some of those board members are not very sympathetic to your cause.

Perhaps, in the final analysis, it won???t matter if the UN cedes leadership to new global ???organizations??? and networks so long as someone can get the job done. But my sense is that the job will not get done without the involvement of an international body that represents the world???s national governments. So in the spirit of renewing the United Nations, I???m offering up the following five six ideas for starters:

1. Hold a series of large-scale digital conversations (along the lines of Habitat Jam) on the each of the millennium development goals (MDG) to help develop new ideas, restore confidence, and engage the public. Set up an Ideastorm for each MDG to continue the dialog.
2. Start building a virtual citizen assembly with representatives from each country. I don???t see this as a ???world parliament??? as others have suggested, but as more of watch dog whose principle responsibility would be to hold agencies within the United Nations system accountable. See??Campaign for the Establishment of a??United Nations Parliamentary Assembly, for example (thanks Tony for the link).
3. Develop a transparency toolkit and encourage social entrepreneurs to build new web-based applications to help track progress (or lack of progress) towards the MDGs, much the way the United Kingdom and the District of Columbia have done with their mash-up contests.
4. Stop producing stale policy documents and white papers and start leveraging rich, interactive media to carry-out the UN???s education and advocacy work.
5. Establish an international clearinghouse of sorts that would help foster greater coordination and knowledge sharing between the multitude of international organizations, aid agencies, NGOs, charities and social entrepreneurs that are engaged in international development efforts.
6. Experiment with??InnoCentive??and other talent marketplaces to help bolster the problem-solving capacity of UN agencies.??Solution Exchange??in India was developed by a local UN agency and could serve as a model for a broader collaboration platform.

United Nations 2.0 may sound far-fetched, but as my colleague aptly put it ???he who cautions every step covers little ground.??? Please add your own ideas in the comments section.

Originally
from Wikinomics

by Anthony D. Williams


reBlogged

on Feb 2, 2009, 9:31PM

Originally by Anthony D. Williams from Wikinomics on February 2, 2009, 10:31pm

Posted under reblog wikinomics