#6 – Water Park Conundrum

Imagine you’re a kid again and your parents are taking you on the many summer vacation to a local water park. Put on your bathing shorts and get into the car or SUV and drive about two hours until you reach the destination. You enter the park and treated to a variety of smells and the sounds of running fresh clean water everywhere. You can wait to get on the first ride. You see a giant water slide in the distance and run to get in line. You spend thirty minutes in that line and it’s finally your turn. You climb the stairs you get to the top and see the blue vista in front of you. You hop on the slide and let gravity take you down the slide until you reach the bottom and expecting fresh cool water you get buried in salty sand. The 70.6 percent of the Earth crust is covered in water, but only 1.6% of that is fresh water.  If the water parks we all remember as a child reflected the reality of fresh water scarcity the planet has, it would it be rather a desert park. There would be no giant water slides, large pool areas, boat rides, spray fountains, or other wasteful water attractions that are a pleasure to see.

People don’t really see water has a issue in the United States because it is cheap, and is accessible practically everywhere, which is why it has become a problem. Poorly planned water systems are draining ecosystems of water that takes centuries to recharge and have vast impacts on the environment. Urbanizing the desert has led to a crisis in western states that are continuously draining there underground aquifers. Instead of adjusting to the environment that city sprung, the city planners instead conformed to the American tradition of surburbia, watered lawns, and water parks. Cities such as Las Vegas are after all located in the dessert, and some strict rules for water usage should be common place for that type of environment. But instead of adopting water efficient technologies, ordinances, and other means to replenish and conserve the water used by the city’s residents and businesses, instead used as much as they possible could thinking the wells would last forever. If the city ran out of water, they would have only themselves to blame.

Considering the previous case, imagine now that the water park instead traveled to where you live. Changing ecosystems and moving rivers have become common place when convenient. But imagine if we move a river and unintended consequence was that we have created a man made flood plain right at you from door. People are running motor boats down your street. And when the water finally subsides, there is the damage, the mold, and the destroyed economy along with it. There would have never been a flood there if they hadn’t move that river and created a flood plain. But who can you blame, the river was in the way, it was too much water. Another example of how we don’t build within our means when it comes to the environment. Now imagine that the river was where a city or town dumped its sewage instead of cleaning the sewage to “acceptable” levels and putting back into the ecosystem. Not only would the environment be polluted but your home as well.

Stephen Mally - New York Times

To put it simply the Water Park Conundrum is a problem of how we change the environment to suit are needs are unsustainable to the development of our society. The water park serves no purpose if there isn’t any water and a water deserted city serves no people. An inconvenient water park isn’t fun and has well as a house underwater. The problem can be solve if we are willing to change how we use water every day.

References

 http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/question157.htm

#5 Our Land, Our Values - Social Sustainability

 “You realized that in the era before the automobile, these houses existed in a completely different relationship with the road. The houses honored the road because the road was honoring” (Kuntsler, The Geography of Nowhere, p. 130). The ways we use are land reflects the values of society. I am pretty sure when thing of houses you can imagine the typical generic triangle shape, with a box for garage right next to it or a driveway. What do houses tell us about what we value? Sustainability is not just environmental issue but also a social one. Van Jones in his TED lecture saw that the reason why people have been so wasteful is because of the idea of disposability. That we can use something until it is waste and simply throw it away and move on to better more disposable item. The landfills are proof of our value in disposability. But houses are more personal and tell us what we really value. The modern house is very materialistic. Houses showcase our excess, our three expensive cars, our expensive drapes and holiday decoration. The Department of Transportation in their 2011 Pocket Guide to Transportation found that 57.4% of households own 2 or more cars.  How many times have we heard story of angry neighbors you complain about other people unmaintained lawns? They say that house makes all of us look bad. The modern day house shows us to be selfish, and materialistic.

Suburbia

There is no easy way to change how people live. Changing the way people can be has impossible as changing the tides. But a way to be socially sustainable is to change the way re build neighborhoods. Instead of having houses face streets, how about houses facing other houses. Move the sidewalks away from the streets place them straight in the middle. Build the garages in the backs of the house so they have access to the streets. This solves alley problem Kuntsler mentions his book, The Geography of Nowhere and the simple design puts value on the community rather than the material goods. The lines between houses will be blur because private residence would blend seamlessly with the public sidewalk. It also allows for more of a park setting. Can you imagine walking out your front door right into a public park filled with benches trees? People will be more incentivize to get out and meet people and actually walk for the sake of walking. It would be a great deal better then peaking your window and seeing some raggedy building, or your neighbor’s gas guzzler, or the 100 cars that drive down the street every day. More importantly the neighborhood would be socially more sustainable. People would have interest in the well being of others. Instead of disliking the person you has maintain his lawn, you would want to know more about why he hasn’t cut his lawn. The houses would honor the community because the people were worth honoring.

Imagine stepping out your front door to this everyday.

Technology - Solar Power Tower

Sustainable Lifestyle

A question was put to me, what are you going to change in your life to be more sustainable? I took time to examine my daily activities and have come to the conclusion that the thing I can change now is the way I eat. There are several sustainability issues dealing with agriculture and in general the poster child for excess is the Food Industry. I am proposing to do is to give up eating fast foods, and cut my consumption of meat products to one servings a day.  That is roughly 1.5lbs of meat a week resulting in a net 33% reduction in meat consumption/year. I am also proposing to consume less beef, has beef farming is less sustainable then most other farming. I will also give up eating at Fast Food restaurants.

#4 Driving A Greener Future

Public Transport

Public Transportation is one of the most fuel efficient ways to travel today. With all the talk of hybrids and fuel efficient cars, trains and bus systems have been providing sustainable transports for decades.  According to David MacKay’s “Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air”, cars on average are 33 miles/ gallon witch translate to 80 kWh/ 100passenger-km. He estimates that trains if full to capacity can reach an efficiency of 3 – 4.4 kWh/ 100p-km, buses can reach 6 kWh/ 100p-km. Public transports get there benefit in carrying more passengers for the same energy usage.  Trains are particular a plus because the technology can be directly powered by alternative energy sources.

But although MacKay notes the clear energy efficiency of these forms of public transport, there is a logistical and economic problems dealing with these systems.  Trains are slow to adopt new technology even if the technology is proven just because of the nature of the system. It would take 30 or more years to replace fuel based locomotives and heavy investment infrastructure converting rails so that they operate on electrical energy. This is evident by trains today still using air based braking system despite electric braking systems   being faster, safer, and more efficient. Another issue is he assumes full ridership which is never the case for most public transport system. There will always be times when people will not be using the public busses and trains. When these systems are under capacity, those systems operate inefficiently and sometimes more energy wasteful then cars. These public transport systems, to ultimately achieve their maximum efficiency, require a complete government and more importantly public shift in funding and utilizing public transport.

Private Transport

David Mackay would suggest that the electric car is the most promising personal transport vehicle in providing a solution to the environmental problems.  Electric cars have a lower manufacturing cost, very good energy economy with a 21 kWh/ p-100kh, and have the benefit of being able to be directly powered by renewable resources. Some of the drawbacks are that electric cars have a maximum driving distance of 100 km and the battery life is currently 10 years or less. But changes in electric car infrastructure and improvements in battery technology can potentially lengthen the lifespan and travel distance of electric cars.

The Tesla Roadster

Technology - China's Pearl

Model of Pearl River Tower.

     Net Zero Energy Buildings are considered the platinum standard of sustainable building. The principle is to design and build edifices that produce there own energy from renewable sources on site. This includes the use of energy management systems, solar panels, and efficient heating systems. That is why the Pearl River Tower in Guangzhou, China is turning some heads.

     This 71 story supertall building relies on not only photo-voltaic cells, and solar panels but also has several wind turbines to power this green tower. The tower also utilizes energy efficient elements such as double skin curtain wall, chilled ceiling system, under floor ventilation air, and daylight harvesting. The building was design and built by world renown Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill and architect Gordon Gills

Rewards:

2010 • Chicago Athenaeum • Green Good Design Award

2008 • Spark Awards • Green, Carbon-Lowering & Environmental Category: Gold Award

Links: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_River_Tower

http://www.som.com/content.cfm/pearl_river_tower

http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.projectview&upload_id=475

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/ashrae/hpb_2008winter/index.php?startid=23

#3 Carbon Tax

Global Climate Change is a problem that the world has to start seriously addressing in the coming years. The IPCC stated in its 2007 Summary to Policymakers that, “Carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas. The global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm3 to 379 ppm3 in 2005. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years.” The facts of the debate are in and human caused carbon dioxide appears to be the major contributor to global warming and the resulting climate change. Because of these facts there should policies put in place to reflect the realities of the world we live in today. There must be some sort of Carbon Tax that translates the environmental cost of carbon emissions to an economic one.

Taxing carbon does several things that will tackle the problem of carbon emissions. The tax will decentivize carbon based fuels and processes that produce the undesired emissions. Companies will look to alternative means to get the energy they need to continue manufacturing. The tax will also raise the price of goods that use the most carbon to be produced. From gas guzzling cars to inefficient coal burning energy plants, there will be a public incentive to find goods and services more energy efficient and cleaner. But there are drawbacks to a carbon tax that must be address. The construction industry will take a heavy hit from the carbon tax. Iron/ Steel Production and Cement Manufacture rank as the 3^rd and 4^th highest sources of carbon dioxide emissions (EPA). A nationwide  increase in construction cost due to increase in construction could potentially lead to a painful blow to the construction industry which rely heavy on concrete and steel for building materials. Another factor that also needs to be considered should be that low income households have less disposable income and already don’t have the means to buy cleaner products.

Figure 1 2006 Sources of CO2 Emissions. This figure illustrates sources of CO2 emissions for 2006. Fossil fuel combustion is by far the largest source of CO2 emissions, From IPCC

Many of these issues can be solve by the collected revenues from the tax. The tax must be used to subsidize low income household with an overall tax credit. This credit will allow low income earners to still get the good and services they need and still avoid the higher carbon products. Some of the revenue of the tax should also use to subsidize carbon neutral and sustainable technologies and fund sustainable construction projects to help lift the markets harmed by the tax.  The overall goal is to force heavy polluters to change energy sources not to punish consumers.

 Carbon Tax enforcement is also difficult to enforce because it requires infrastructure to monitor and assess carbon emissions from practically every industry. One of the ways that governments have approach it is to regulate the carbon emission like volatile emissions. Other countries adopt a Cap and Trade type system that gradually raises the cost of carbon emissions overtime. Each of the systems used have positives and drawbacks associated with them.

A Carbon Tax will not solve the climate crises but it will be step towards addressing the problem. If design and implemented intelligently the system will behave positively and begin to change course. Other factors still need to be change such as the behaviors of everyday people but there needs to be an economic change to inform the social change.

Bibliography

IPCC (2007). Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H. L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York. NY, USA. Retrieved February 7, 2011 from http://www.urban.illinois.edu/courses/up446/sp11/Reader/2_IPCC%2007%20Policy%20Document.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2006). Human-Related Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide. Received from http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html