The 2030 Eco-Challenge

NOBODY is the g-dd--mned "messiah" of green anything. There are articles and drawings dating back to before this guy was born re green architecture. Romance period, enlightenmnet period, and industrial revolution period architects were into it. Even FLWright was into it. So were the Hopi and Katchina.

The 2030 challenge is a list of numbers. What's the incentive to architects to fight with their clients to reach these numbers? What's going to be the difference from exactly what is going on now with regard to pointing out to clients the energy savings from currently available technology?

Just because some godforsaken part of the country is waking up to reality, does that make them leaders?

Gimme a break. Don't make me puke.

Mark

Agreed. And since there are some "real" issues out there to deal with like feeding the poor, etc I am getting sick and tired of this green croc. If we cant post real scientific issues lets stop.

Whew! This one is playing to a pretty tough audience.

I have to agree with the handyman in that the news is - that there is nothing new here. Repackaging the same product may still be a valid concept if it brings awareness to the forefront - but that is just 'sales engineering' .

Messiah, my ass. The so called "green" movement is a happy face name for creative research that has been pursued for decades; it is found in indigenous architecture dating back thousands of years. Upon entering an architectural program in Arizona I immediately found solar power research that had started in the fifties at the university. FLW was there in the forties; Paolo Soleri came in the fifties to create his "archologies".

If CR4 really wants to help construction industry members, give us the name of Mazria's publicist.

The reality of modern life is that the cost will usually be the deciding factor in most design.

Thus as the price of oil rises - or through environmental taxes - the "greener" solutions will start to make economic sense.

At present few of them make economic sense and many of them do not even make environmental sense if viewed through the whole life cycle.

You have an interesting point of view, and I'm sure it's valid from some perspectives. I wonder what you mean by not making environmental sense if viewed through the whole life cycle. Could you expand on that thought?

I have a different point of view. And I could go on for pages about it. But as examples to make my point, I'll mention just a few items.

Greener solutions have clearly been making conservative economic sense for years. They are nothing new, lower per capita energy use, save money, and you can find them all over the place.

This is because every chance an architect or building designer gets, he/she will make suggestions to a client as to how its final design can be more environmentally efficient, as in "save money". Clients really like the idea of saving money, so they think the world of designers who are aware of ways to accomplish this.

Landscaping

A tall tree in your yard offers cooling shade in the summer, then loses its leaves and allows sun through in the winter. Some enclosed porches are also designed this way. A leafed-tree's micro-climate is cool and damp. Home gardens can be planned to grow bank savings from money saved at the supermarket. If you live in an apartment with a balcony, vertical gardens can be as prolific as horizontal ones in the backyard. Self-composting assures good growth and saves on landfill costs. Landscape architecture has solved both the smell and cleansing/recycling problems of sewage disposal facilities. (The 'smell' part's a fact not yet discovered by the two or three local sewage plants around where I live, which process sewage in a traditional style.)

Heating

Closed-system hot water radiant heating is considered to be the most effective and economical form of heating. Every year, furnace companies come out with smaller, more efficient source-heat supply systems. Heat pumps, now used in multi-storey buildings ("high-rises") as well as single-family dwellings, cut the cost of heating energy and conserve resources. Thermopaned windows cut heat losses by 75%.

Building Industry

Totally insulated and VB'd as well as mainly-below-ground homes have cut the heating budget where they are employed in half. There is an architectural movement afoot to offer creatively artistic forms of so-called green housing, using both 'modern' and well-established principles. (You can buy books in your local building materials stores about building with adobe, straw, log, and recycled materials.) Concrete and building-block research has leaned toward insulated, lightweight materials production. Steel rebar is being replaced with other materials that don't oxidize as well to prevent bridge pier spalling. Showers are provided with constriction washers to save on fresh-water usage.

Electricity

In Toronto, so many consumers have switched to smart electric meters and fluorescent lighting that the local hydro company had to raise rates to meet their bottom line because they couldn't collect the cash from their billings. One has only to read through the blogs in this site to realize that not only farmers (who have been doing it since the 1920's) are creating their own electrical service provision; and those who are making thier own electricity today are employing a myriad of different devices to do so. Major electricity providers are looking for generating sources in new directions, and have produced a dozen or so reasonably clean workable systems, currently in operation.

Mark

"Here's a surprising fact: Automobiles are not the single greatest cause of greenhouse gasses, but buildings."

Why read an article that begins with a misrepresentation of the global warming phenomenon? THE NOT SO SURPRISING FACT IS THAT THE OCEANS OF THE EARTH ARE THE SINGLE GREATEST CAUSE OF GREENHOUSE GASES!

Humans only produce .28% of the yearly total of all greenhouse gas emissions . (yes that includes all cars, buildings, power plants, chemical refineries, oxygen thieves)

....and if everyone wants to stop breathing we can reduce that number a good bit.....

That is an interesting assertion -=- did your statement mean 0.28 per cent or twenty eight percent?

Do you have any links to data which would breakdown the natural ( oceans, animals, volcanoes etc) and human induced methane, CO2 etc?

Thanks

Ditto to Hugh's request, Guest.

I'd be really interested in a good source for such a statistic. Hope you can find it.

Mark

Here is one:

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

There are many more but not all on one page.

Thanks. Very interesting and informative. I'm sure that Masu and others who have intensely studied this phenomenon will have something to add.

Mark

Thank you for posting the information. Many people believe the media and the hype (spin) about whatever topic is presented. Ruminary animals produce a large amount of methane, which has been known by veternarians and engr's, but has only tested by the scientists linked to climatology within the past decade.

Many scientists never discuss or consider alternative explanations from other displines, causing misinterpretation of data, and erroneous conclusions. And because of grant funding, causes a lot of infighting and name calling.

For those who do not like to read this video (5 part series) is also very interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA

See latest issue of "Focus" magazine for other surprizing facts. www.bbcfocusmagazine.com

BrainWave:

Which particular article(s) were you drawing attention to?

Mark

See the front page it explains all. Page 26 onwards. they list the most polluting forms of transport and house hold items. It seems the car is one of the least polluting ways to get around. Go to www.bbcfocusmagazine.com There is the link. OK.