Urban farming has grown to be a subculture of sustainability that has received a fair amount of theoretical interest and study, but not a great deal of realization. For all of the interesting possibilities that urban farming is thought to enable, there have been enough hurdles to slow down any meaningful manifestations in U.S. cities. One group of eclectic individuals has pooled their efforts into a concept that offers a new model for urban farming with hopes that it could help jump start investment. They call their vision “Agropolis.”
Archives For Economic
The ranks of green-minded architects appear to be growing. The growing number of LEED accreditations and certifications alike point to a larger knowledge base that can be pulled from at the start of every new building project. But, to the best of my knowledge, we are not seeing more projects designed and funded by architects. This one-stop-shop package, though an attractive vision to many architects, is rarity in the profession that ultimately remains a service business to development clients. Even if architects are pushing sustainability, developers are the ones that have to pull the trigger and they often have little reason to.
Proponents of an economic migration towards sustainability often tote “Green Jobs” as one of the reasons for pressing and supporting a societal shift. The pitch is often given in hopes of securing funding and government legislation that would steer the U.S. towards new standards of efficiency or implementing renewable energy. We can see a common tactic: throw out large, nondescript numbers as vague promises for new employment opportunities, but few actually walk through an explanation of where these new jobs will actually occur. Companies would do better to take the extra step and show people that a new workforce would not just be found in constructing wind turbines and solar panels, but that these changes permeate through the veins of the economy that connect our industries to offer jobs at numerous venues.
The growing buzz around electric vehicles has some saying they will be the next great product migration in the automobile market. To date, one of the largest impasses for the fledgling technology is the batteries and their expense. Advanced battery systems, like lithium-ion, required for larger capacities and quicker recharging times are the high cost element for these new cars. But some car companies are now exploring a way to help offset those costs and materials by trying to survey out a second life for these batteries after they leave cars to serve as renewable power storage. Before electric vehicles have even hit the production lines their lifecycle costs could be drastically reduced by capitalizing on interconnections with other sustainable industries.
I can just hear people looking around sporting a big shrug and palms pointed upward with a questioning look on their faces. “What’s the problem? Things are fine, we’re on a decline!” The Energy Information Administration recently released analysis that carbon emissions decreased by a record 7% in 2009. Undeniably, this is great news. Since we began measuring releases of CO2, never has the country declined so much within a single year. The danger is for some to mistake this event as reason to slack off instead of the impetus to push harder. As economic recovery in the U.S. begins to take hold, more than ever, now is the time to tighten our belts so that economic expansion happens as sustainability as possible.
Tight economic times have a way of recalibrating priorities. According to a recent study, although the economic weight of the recession has caused a small retreat in sentiment for green building in design and construction professionals, the vast majority still promote building sustainably to their respective clients, helping to stoke a global green building industry worth $558 billion in 2009. Fewer, however, remained supportive of seeking LEED certification for buildings as a means for a more public display of green efforts.
Sustainability is still young enough in the minds of Americans for most of us to think of it as only being associated with buying hybrids, using CFLs and recycling our bottles and cans. In reality, sustainability is an encompassing topic that affects every aspect of how we live in a perpetual search for balance. When it comes to sustainability, our economy has a long way to go, but having Americans revert from their incessant spending of money (that we often don’t have) and actually saving so that we can afford things that we want is a step in the right direction.
An article in the Wall Street Journal recently highlighted the fact that credit card borrowing in the U.S. decreased for an 11th month in a row—an unprecedented occurrence since the Federal Reserve Bank began keeping track of the figures in 1943. According to the Fed, borrowing in the fourth quarter decreased at an annual 4.75%. Not only were Americans borrowing less, but saving more to boot. The article reported that savings as a percentage of personal income had risen to 4.6% in 2009 from 2.7% in 2008.
Even proponents of sustainability know that the desire for change cannot trump technological capability. Systems like compressed air power storage, algae-based jet fuel or wave power generation have moved passed discovery and would be great additions to society but simply have not reached a level of commercial viability. When interests lie on the bleeding edge this is simply part of the game. However, there are few things more troublesome and disenchanting than a technology that exists to improve the level of function and efficiency of products and is simply not executed. I came across an article on Matter Network that highlighted the fact that a Ford Focus model for Europe is set to achieve 62 MPG, yet the Focus for Americans achieves only 35. This means that the technology for increased fuel economy is here, but not utilized. Things like this are amazingly frustrating. Continue Reading…
Yesterday the Commerce Department released that housing starts in the U.S. had dropped 10.6% in the month of October from the previous month. Cast in a predictably negative light, the markets responded with downward movement due to rising fears of a slow pace for our economic recovery. I find myself in the minority that sees this as long term good news, a market condition we should be embracing as we take a rare economic opportunity to try and move our jobs base from our historical model of unlimited growth to one of sustainable capitalism.
Traditionally, housing starts are seen as a leading indicator of economic health as they represent fuel for the construction industry which contributes 4-5% of our national GDP according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Building and purchasing new homes is one of the quickest ways for Americans to spend money—which is one of the things we do best. But not only is there no reason for us to be building more homes right now, but we should not emerge into a new economy built on the foundations of an outmoded concept of creating square footage ad infinitum.
If one were to forget the economic assumption that more housing starts is always positive, it is easy to see the number of reasons why we have no need for more housing right now. The recession has left us with an excess of homes. An article in the Wall Street Journal notes that “the number of homes listed for sale was 3.63 million in September according to the National Association of Realtors. That is enough to last about eight months at the current rate of sales.” The article also points out that foreclosures are still on the rise, leaving more property in the hands of banks (and even the FDIC) that want, and need, to unload them at bargain values, only further pressuring prices. We do not need more of a product that is in declining demand from a consumer that cannot afford to purchase it.
Furthermore, the NRDC’s Kaid Benfield pointed out last month that aging baby boomers are estimated to begin unloading their suburban homes at a rate of 5% per year between 2010 and 2030, only adding to the glut of available space.
Suburban homes are also not where we should be focusing our money and efforts when it comes to new living space. The financial crisis offered an opportunity to finally rein an expansion of suburban sprawl that has gone on for decades. New homes farther away from town and city centers bring with them more utilities, more emergency services and more energy wasted in commuting. We should be bolstering our urban centers and drawing people back to their inherent efficiencies of living. To have our government working on a carbon bill while we are using more farmland and natural landscape to prop up developer homes is ridiculous. It is the difference between the image of sustainability and the nature of sustainability—the latter is an encompassing system that affects a lifestyle in its entirety.
If Americans are serious about creating a more sustainable economy, then eventually we need to move away from a system where our barometer of success is continuous growth. It is possible for our country to be healthy without building an increasing number of new homes each month. Of course, it means asking those annoying questions like “What happens when there is no more acreage left to develop?” or “How many people can our country feasibly support indefinitely?” The easiest way to avoid the answers is to begin changing our trajectory now. Instead of new home construction we can be focusing on building retrofits, restoration and deconstruction. These practices use less energy, produce less waste and improve upon the building stock that we already have to make it better instead of tearing it down. One can imagine a combination of virgin building, recycling and upcycling that could bring us much closer to a level of construction stasis.
Construction is only one of the areas where we need to re-align our practices to change our economic growth expectations. Transit, energy production and distribution and water infrastructure all are viewed as continuously growing commodities and can all be curbed into regenerative social practices.
Photo Credit: Flickr movers_4u
In a consumer-driven market like the U.S., change often rests in the hands of buyers and investors. The fastest way to spread a new social norm through society is by making a product that people want to pay for. The environmental arena has made a lot of progress in what can be a difficult arena: turning a social movement into a salable marketplace—but the conversion comes with a catch. Organizations and companies that end up contributing to the “cause” want to make sure people know about it so it does not seem like money is just evaporating. For a number of entities this creates a tough choice of spending on things that are easiest to see or things that make the most difference.
A couple days ago I had the chance to sit down with a good friend who works as part of the financial department of a college in New England. For the sake of discretion, I will call him “Mr. Nes” (North Eastern School). Mr. Nes told me that his institution was on board with lowering their carbon footprint and increasing the efficiency of their campus. Apparently, they are one of a growing number of schools that are becoming more serious about being greener. This particular college was working with a consulting company to try and realize the best ways to address the issue of upgrading an existing campus.
Mr. Nes said that it was not long before the school began to run into tough choices when it came to what methods would be used in the campaign. It became clear that the efforts that would add the most benefit environmentally would not be showy additions that you could point out on a tour. At the same time, when it comes to endowment dollars, donors want to know that the money is being used wisely.
“The thing that makes the most sense is putting in a cogeneration plant” behind an existing building. “But no one would ever see it. On the other hand, we could throw up a bunch of solar panels on the admissions building, but the savings would be minimal,” Mr. Nes confessed.
The dilemma is not an uncommon one and will likely be around until the market matures beyond the point of needing to bolster recognition for making good choices. From anything to single family homes to college campuses, the measures that make the most difference are often not the ones that look best in an alumni newsletter. Systems like rain water capture tanks, grey-water filtration, power storage, and using geothermal or outside air for heating and cooling all are relatively absent from the public eye yet provide amazing savings in resource consumption. On the other hand, wind turbines, photovoltaics, low flow fixtures or waterless urinals are features that people can interact with.
Buildings like One Bryant Park end up with some combination of both, providing systems that produce a better bottom line and satisfy the need for publicity. Investors and pedestrians can see green materials, waterless urinals and naturally lit spaces with walls of high efficiency, fritted windows. Behind the scenes, the rain water capture tanks, ice storage containers and under-floor air systems are providing some of the backbone for their ecological savings.
In the short term, I see a couple of options or challenges for projects like these. One is for the architects and engineers who are tasked with making systems more visible to people in an attractive way. The other is to marketing departments and communication groups who have to find new ways of displaying and promoting important steps in sustainability so that those providing the funding dollars feel like they are getting the credit they are after.