Most major transit initiatives can currently be divided into two camps: those that want to make our transportation landscape greener by creating alternatives to car travel vs. those that want to create a greener generation of automobiles. Arguably, both pursuits can lead towards the same goal of reducing environmental impact but each option brings with it significant directional decisions as to the future of our culture and how we design the built environment. In the end there may not be one universal option that fits a country like the U.S., but different courses whose implementation should follow the demands between urban and suburban development.
Archives For environment
Over the last decade the term “Upcycling” has been coined and worked into the discourse of sustainability efforts. It appeared in William McDonough’s book, Cradle to Cradle. It has yet to earn itself mainstream popularity, but its necessity as a goal for how we should be progressing makes its definition important. Like so many things in sustainability, I come across many enthusiasts who are trying to promote the practice but may be passing around an incorrect meaning.
Even before I went to London, I had heard tales about its extensive subway system. Known as “the Tube,” many boasted that the infrastructure was easier to understand, cleaner and safer than New York’s MTA service. In short, I was hearing it labeled as “better.” While the Tube is an impressive system, a closer look at its operation and costs draw into question its existence as a system of “public transit.”
New York:
New York’s underground subway system began in 1904. Over a century later, it is made up of 26 different subway routes on 9 different lines with a total of 468 individual stations. It spans across four of the five boroughs with a total of 229 miles of route track distance and 842 miles of track bed (most of New York’s system are three or four tracks across.) Transporting an average of 5 million passengers every weekday, the system carries over 1.6 billion people annually.
London:
Beginning in 1863, the Tube is made up of 11 different subway lines with a total of 270 individual stations. 250 miles of track spread across the neighborhoods of London. An average weekday hosts 3 million passengers, bringing an annual total to around 1 billion patrons. Like New York, the Tube began as a series of privately funded ventures that were eventually encompassed by municipal oversight and direction.
The train cars, also called “rolling stock”, of the Tube feature cloth-covered seats and colored handrails. Every car I traveled on was clean. The speakers announcing stations were clear. Comfort was a clear goal in the cars’ design and it was achieved. Averaging 8’6” wide, the average train is approximately 437’ long. New York’s cars are often wider at 10’across with trains as long as 600’ to provide a larger average capacity. Though New York subways can transport more passengers per ride, once inside the digs are not plush, merely smartly infrastructural with plastic seat surfaces easily cleaned. Finding a car where one can actually hear the announcements is hit or miss.
While the street grid of New York provides for fewer crossings of train lines, London’s web of streets forces many tracks be carved deeper beneath the road surface. Most tunnels in the Big Apple are 15-20’ underground, but London’s can go as deep as 65’ (a healthy five story building.) Not only can getting down to the tracks take longer, but air movement at such depths becomes more difficult. In the London heat wave of 2006, the temperature in Tube tunnels reached 117 degrees Fahrenheit.
The E.P.A.’s Lisa Jackson released a statement yesterday that announced the formal findings for carbon dioxide being labeled as dangerous to public health in the United States and thereby exercising its ability to regulate it under the Clean Air Act. An E.P.A. move to regulate greenhouse gases could effectively sidestep Congress which has stumbled with its attempts to pass climate legislation. Undoubtedly, this could mark one of the most powerful and proactive stances of any administration towards addressing climate change, but it could also merely be political noise used as a stop gap to try and bolster confidence both nationally and internationally in the Obama administration’s environmental agenda.
Mrs. Jackson’s speech had a distinctive activist tone, continually remarking on the overdue responsibility of the U.S. to be a leader in addressing greenhouse gas emissions.
This long-overdue finding cements 2009’s place in history as the year when the United States Government began seriously addressing the challenge of greenhouse gas pollution and seizing the opportunity of clean-energy reform.
The findings set out a road map of possibility; a series of steps that the E.P.A. could take to directly intervene in how our country deals with carbon emissions. The first step, set to begin in 2011, includes requiring facilities that emit over 25,000 tons of carbon annually to monitor and report those emissions to the E.P.A. Other measures could include a more direct and hands-on role in curbing the emissions from vehicles and requiring emitting facilities, particularly power generation companies, to employ the best available technologies to deal with greenhouse gases. This could mean that companies would no longer be allowed to sit idle on technologies that exist to improve efficiency and cleaner operation.
Opposing stances were quick to arise from parties like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce who argue that strict measures could hinder economic growth due to the added costs associated with carbon regulation. Given our recession environment, this is by far the strongest attack on carbon policy and the worries are not completely unfounded. Some degree of added cost will likely find power producers and industrial manufacturers that could, in turn, trickle down to higher prices for the end user, but I am not one that believes this is a reason not to proceed.
As a country now famous for its deficits, our low priced goods and services are a bit of an illusion that we support either at our own delayed, tax-paying expense or at the expense of the environment. We have been running countless environmental deficits for decades and are only now finding out the degree of what they are and how much they truly “cost.” If regulating carbon means that the price of power increases then maybe that means that producing power the right way is simply more expensive than we have allowed ourselves to believe.
However, planning for widespread, overarching regulation by the E.P.A. maybe a bit preemptive at this point because it is possible that this is merely some fancy political footwork to buy the Obama administration some time. The timing of the release in relation to the Copenhagen Climate Summit is far from coincidental and undoubtedly meant to supplement our lack of ability to create proactive climate legislation. At the same time, the announcement lights a fire underneath Senators and lobbyists to get a finalized bill passed to avoid E.P.A. intervention. Business interests know that compromising on climate legislation allows for their input in reaching a bargain. E.P.A. regulation does not need to ask anyone’s opinion when operating under the umbrella of the Clean Air Act. The President has also already stated that he prefers legislative action for managing carbon over unilateral direction by a governmental agency.
Furthermore, even if the E.P.A. was prepared and willing to police carbon for the country, it would likely be years before any real weight of change would be felt. We are still over a year away from merely reporting numbers let alone forcing companies to implement technologies to change them. When the possibilities of lawsuits are added in, it is much more likely that we will see climate legislation passed before the E.P.A. ever has the chance to draw lines in the sand.
As much as I would welcome a chance to move faster and cut through red tape, I fear it is more likely that this a political threat that the administration has little intention of actually exercising. That is not to say that it will not work. These efforts may help us secure a climate bill in the first half of 2010. If not, I only hope the administration has the brass to call the bluff of congress and the business community if no progress is made.
Using over 1,300 gallons per day per capita, many Americans have been lulled into the misconception that we do not have to worry about our water supply. We are paying a great deal of attention to our resources for energy: coal, oil, natural gas. Debates in the Climate Bill and the upcoming Environmental Summit in Copenhagen have sharpened our focus on the sun and wind as natural resources. Of all of the resources that America focuses on, water is near the bottom and as a result we are unsurprisingly the least careful with its use and upkeep. The truth is known in other parts of the world much more poignantly than here: a clean supply of fresh water is essential and serves as the lynch pin for the interaction and function of countless other systems in the country.
America uses an average of 410 billion gallons of water everyday. I have not done the study, but I doubt many other nations (if any) can make such a boast. Whether we realize it or not, the water bill at the end of the month is only a fraction of how much we really spend on our water infrastructure. On average, U.S. cities spend $70 billion annually on water and wastewater needs according to the U.S. Census—second only to dollars allocated towards education. Part of the reason is due to our water system being a very energy-intensive process both conveying and distributing fresh water as well as removing and filtering wastewater. Together it takes our country 8 quadrillion BTUs of energy every year.
The Problems
Like our energy grid, much of our water system has gone too long without upgrades and repairs. In many parts of the country water and sewer pipes are well beyond their rated lifespans, raising the likelihood of breakages and leaks that interrupt service, waste precious water and allow for the infiltration of disease. Midrange, post-industrial cities of the country are the most prone to budgets that cannot accommodate necessary changes to their infrastructure. According to the Baltimore City Paper, there are parts of town in the coastal city that have sewers over 100 years old. Similarly, my time in Syracuse, New York revealed that as of 2005 most of the city’s water pipes are 60 to 70 years old that leave the water with a lead content 33% over the EPA limit. Their sewers are no better, with only 14% of the pipes less than 50 years old—the rated lifespan of the system.
Despite the improvement in water quality that the Clean Water Act has brought, pollution still remains a harrowing issue for much of the country. The New York Times released a disturbing report claiming that the Clean Water Act has been violated over 506,000 times since 2004 by over 23,000 companies and facilities. According to the report everything from gas stations and dry cleaners to chemical plants and power stations have dumped hazardous waste into the ground or directly into bodies of water. The report claims that one in 10 Americans has drinking water with dangerous chemicals or does not meet federal health benchmarks. I encourage the reading of the entire article as well as their great interactive map. I found the figures to be staggering, but what made it worse was that “the Time research found that less than 3 percent of violations resulted in fines or other significant punishments by state officials.”
For years now, a lack of strong federal oversight has allowed these transgressions to become business as usual. Never known as the shining star of George W. Bush’s presidency (if it had one at all) his E.P.A. was notoriously lax in its oversight of its duties for the two terms of the administration. Without federal power to invoke consequences from the highest level, local regulators often fall prey to pressure from politicians or large corporations.
“The E.P.A. and our states of have completely dropped the ball. Without oversight and enforcement, companies will use our lakes and rivers as dumping grounds—and that’s exactly what is apparently going on.” – Rep James L. Oberstar, D-Maryland
The Obama administration’s new E.P.A. head, Lisa Jackson, has noted that national drinking water quality is below acceptable levels and has vowed to renew the E.P.A.’s stance of enforcement.
Where Does the Water Go?
Finding a solution to some of our problems can likely begin with understanding how we use 410 billion gallons a day. A recent report released by the United States Geological Survey focuses on how Americans use their water. I found this publication equally as surprising. To begin, between 1980 and 2005, our water use has decreased by 5 percent! Upon reading this I was immediately skeptical and had to find out how it was possible, but before long the reason became clear.
As an architect I am often the champion of water efficiency in buildings. After all, nearly 40% of our nation’s energy is used by buildings so believing that they consume large quantities of water seemed to be intuitive. As it turns out, all domestic water use (residential applications in homes) accounts for only 1% of all of the water that we use. If you add all public water use and thereby include nearly all buildings in existence, you only get another 11%. Perhaps the culprits are all that heavy manufacturing or the mining we do across the country? Even with aquaculture, livestock, industrial and mining operations the cumulative total is only 20%. So where does the other 328 billion gal/day get used?
The second highest source is irrigation which is mostly comprised of farming. 31% of our water is used to irrigate 61.1 million acres in 2005. The number one source of water use is cooling for thermoelectric power plants. 49% of our water goes to creating power from such sources as coal, oil, nuclear and natural gas. All of a sudden, the nature of where to target efficiency for meaningful change has a very different appearance and that is why our water usage has dropped over the past 25 years. Due to more sprinkler-system irrigation and more efficient cooling systems in power plants, water consumption has ebbed despite a rise in population.
Response
Though a complicated problem, moreso than can be addressed in one article, the information does not leave us without places to go or reasons to get there.
- Our infrastructure needs to be raised to acceptable levels that allow for efficient systems that can bring water safely to end users. This could include a more distributed system of supply along with onsite water collection and filtration of waste water.
- Our governing bodies need to accept the responsibility of their offices to enforce laws that keep our water safe.
- Efforts targeting efficiency should focus on our largest sources of water use: farming and power generation. This could lead to more research devoted to vertical farming and hydroponics. It also provides a seldom mentioned strength to renewable energy sources like wind and solar given that, once installed, their use of water is negligible.
Failure to progress on these initiatives could lead to an increase in national water-related sicknesses, more natural waterways polluted beyond safety for human use or ecological function and a further increase in drought and drinking water shortages for communities.
Photo Credit: Flickr Wester
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.
One of the new opposing forces to the deployment of renewable energy has been dubbed “Energy Sprawl,” referring to a symptom of energy sites requiring dubious amounts of land that could purportedly threaten our natural landscape. Where NIMBY voices are troublesome, these claims are more misguided. There is no question that some renewable power options need space. Energy sources like wind and solar require land in order to build arrays large enough to make them efficient, but the real sprawling epidemic has nothing to do with energy, is much worse and has been going on unaddressed for decades: suburban sprawl. Anyone raising arms about devoting land to renewable energy should be prepared to combat the growth of our suburban communities.
Over the past half century, flight from cities has created an explosion of development in suburbia that claims more virgin land every year. As late as the housing boom that lead up to the current recession, the cost of construction, laxity of zoning laws and ease in security mortgage debt lead to new communities sprouting up across the country almost over night. The result is an ever-expanding network of roadways and a lifestyle driven by automotive travel that breeds inefficiency and waste.
There seems to be a misconception that land used for building new cul-de-sacs wrapped in colonial revival vernacular is somehow less desirable than land used for erecting wind turbines or solar panels. Virgin forest or prime farmland is consumed every year to be subdivided and turned into brand new housing stock. In her book A Field Guide to Sprawl, Dolores Hayden says “the American Farmland Trust estimates that in the United States, 1.2 million acres of farmland were lost to development every year between 1992 and 1997.”
As a point of reference, a solar farm planned for Deming, New Mexico will be one of the biggest in the world, producing up to 300 MW or enough power for 240,000 homes. If completed, the array will require 3,200 acres of land. Using the same ratio of roughly 1 MW per 11 acres of land, the 6 million acres of land consumed for homes in the 1990’s could contribute a maximum capacity of 545,450 MW (545 gigawatts.) According to the Energy Information Association, our total national power generation capacity is in the neighborhood of 995 GW (so over half of our power.)
Unlike energy development, suburban land acquisition does nothing for the natural environment. Its conception lays more roads, erects more power lines and creates more commuting traffic by perpetuating the need for more cars on pavement. The fortunate developments may only waste time, money and resources by laying new sewers while those too far from town or city centers rely instead on septic systems. Despite our best wishes, pouring Drano into a sink that leads to a leeching field is nominally the same as going outside and pouring it on the ground.
Energy installations like wind farms produce clean power and by doing so are diverting generation from sources like coal and oil that can bring damaging effects to the environment along every point of their supply chain from mining to combustion. Modern wind turbines are also usually tall enough that land beneath them can still be farmed. Though some energy arrays may pose some interference with the habitat or migration of natural species (a common attack against wind farm construction), it is estimated that in the U.S. up to 130 million animals are killed on the road every year by cars.
On the other hand, suburban plots produce nothing. They are not havens for animal habits. Unlike the land that they consume, rarely are they net sources of food, clean water or energy. An article by Dan Shapley notes that according to Census Bureau data, in 2006 nine of the ten fastest growing counties were located in the South or West in areas already stressed for the capacity of fresh water. In Dallas Fort-Worth, one of the fastest growing regions in the country, a North Texas Future Fund report states “by 2050 the [water] deficit could reach 1.1 million-acre feet per year — an amount greater than total current demand.”
Like anything else, the construction of renewable energy has its drawbacks but the argument of space does not come close to comparing to the epidemic of waste that comprises our history of limitless suburban expansion.
In honor of Blog Action Day 2009
Photo Credits: Alex Maclean & Sincerely Sustainable
The stimulus package has helped to renew consideration for updating our national rail system to include high speed trains, devoting $8 billion to funding new projects across the country. The desire for breaking into new territory is clearly there. Forty states have reportedly submitted $103 billion in requests for high speed rail funding (that is over 12 times the available pot.) However, unless we are complimenting these faster means of travel with smaller, more localized improvements to the network of alternative transit these dollars may be paying for a system with limited levels of efficiency.
These sleek trains that can travel in excess of 200 miles per hour are one of the more enticing visions of efficiency in bolstering alternative transportation in the country and limiting car and plane travel. Glances to European and Asian models give tantalizing possibilities of quicker commutes like traveling from San Francisco to Los Angeles in under three hours. Conventional wisdom pegs trains as far more fuel efficient than the energy required to fly a plane and within a radius of 600 miles, the train can actually be more convenient and faster when you factor in the arduous process of air travel (baggage, security, boarding, taxiing, deplaning.)
I am a complete supporter of high speed trains, but too many people are beginning to see them as the silver “bullet” for our travel woes and if they are not running between cities that have continued to build a network of alternative transit, their usefulness will be capped and keep us from the success that other countries have found.
Alternative transportation is an ecosystem of its own, encompassing every scale of travel from door to door. High speed rail is at the largest scale, great for covering large distances with as few stops as possible and performing well on a scale of transportation efficiency, but no matter what they are only part of the journey. Getting to and from the station in a sensible way is part of what makes the concept viable and attractive. Smaller, more localized systems must be installed to facilitate local access to high speed travel. Spending the money to connect cities without this infrastructure is jumping the gun.
Regional or commuter train lines offer the first level of integration of alternative transit, giving more people easy and cost-effective access to prime transport nodes of major cities. Unlike their high-speed brethren, these trains can make more local stops while still easily trumping the time and energy required of car travel. From there, local lines can take the form of subways, light rail or street cars that give easy maneuverability in urban settings and exponentially increase the amount of accessible destinations. Still further are bus and bike infrastructure that provide an efficient way for short, local trips while remaining efficient in both energy and space.
A true system that utilizes all of these components would drastically decrease the need, and convenience, of traveling by car—which is part of the idea. The more convenience that the system can sell, the more passengers will change their travel habits, allowing the cost of the service to drop, perpetuating the cycle.
Not transit programmed?
Our problem in America is that our cities (and perhaps more importantly, our suburbs) are not designed to accept these systems. The last half-century has been spent crafting our environment around car travel, making it no surprise that many people feel reluctant to consider alternatives. Most of our cities do not have these integrated systems, or even pieces of them, and remain slaves to roads, highways and viaducts. This is why some experts assert that, as of now, the Northeast is the only truly viable site for high speed rail where cities that have matured transit infrastructure can benefit. Having a high speed train stop in Los Angeles makes far less sense than one stopping in New York City.
Although I am a proponent for getting people to change, at a certain point the request becomes unreasonable if the extra effort is less convenient with no time saving and a higher cost. Critics of new rail systems point to existing infrastructure like Amtrak and its failed attempt to remain a profitable source of travel. The costs in construction and maintenance of railroads are extremely high and in a recession no one wants to sign onto a plan that will create black holes of tax dollars.
Their complaints are not entirely unfounded. Amtrak has yet to succeed in convincing enough people ride to keep the prices noticeably low, but what can we expect? As a country we have not succeeded in building our communities around alternative transport—we have not really tried. But if we are going to try then it has to be a holistic effort. That being said, the situation is improving. Amtrak has seen increasing record ridership for the past 6 years and running. The progress can be compliment by our cities, towns and suburbs being re-conceived with less deference given to automobiles. Picking the regions to receive funding for high speed projects could hinge on whether local municipalities can do parallel efforts to promote transit-oriented development on a local scale to increase the health of the entire network.
I am reminded of conservationist Willie Smits and his rebuilding of rain forests. As he explains, there is more to the forest than just the trees—an entire system at different heights, sizes and light levels that is mutually and intricately co-dependent. True rehabilitation efforts must address them all and alternative transit is no different.
The housing boom of the 90’s brought the explosion of “McMansions” across U.S. suburbs leaving us with hundreds of thousands of examples for a new wave for upper class living. While the recession may have created a lull in the construction of these shrines to excess, there is no data to suggest that Americans have outgrown their hunger for raw square footage and the public perception that space equals societal stature. The idea of a green home two, three or four times the size of the average house is a bit of an oxymoron with notions of efficiency and excess instantly butting heads, but perhaps there are ways for the lives of the luxurious to follow a more sustainable path. Continue Reading…
Sometimes the products of technology and infrastructure have a certain beauty that compliments their functional necessity, but all too often our aversion to the appearance of key service components conflicts with our desire for their services to be readily available. Renewable energy production, such as wind turbines and solar power stations, are increasingly becoming the targets of backlash, even from environmental supporters, when it comes time to locate them. A new strategy for overcoming the next generation of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) sentiment is imperative to avoid our recent progress in sustainability from hitting a wall.
Polling from numerous sources repeatedly points to a growing population of U.S. citizens supporting the need to address climate change and transfer our production of energy to renewable sources. People will sign petitions, click “yes” on websites and maybe even call their Congressman in support of green energy. But in true American style, when it comes to actually implementing the goal the discussion turns into a barrage of finger-pointing with no one wanting to have to look at the finished product.
The lack of willingness to actively participate in the necessities of society is one of our blaring moments of shortsightedness. As a country that enjoys an elevated standard of living, its rise has been paralleled not only by an increasingly complex and expansive array of technology necessary to sustain it, but also a lack of responsibility for making it possible. Having a water treatment facility within a block from your home is a fallacy, but blame is thrown instantly at the onset of an E. coli breakout. No one wants to see high voltage power lines but brownouts are unacceptable.
One of the more famous examples is the repeated stalling of the Cape Wind Project that meant to erect 130 wind turbines in Nantucket Sound with a maximum capacity of 420MW. The program claims that in average winds the wind farm could provide 75% of the energy for Cape Cod and its surrounding islands. However, local residents have opposed the project due to the possibility of tarnishing their ocean view. Keep in mind that the wind turbines will be 5 to 13 miles from shore so that an onlooker could reportedly extend an arm and cover one with the fingernail on a thumb.
Unsurprisingly, continuously pushing renewables to the outskirts of society increases the amount of transmission (materials, land, installation, maintenance, replacement) needed to transport the power, increasing the amount of power lost in transit and raising the price of the power that gets there (which in turn compounds the problem.) Heaven forbid we need to pay more for power that is more sustainable and less polluting. Who would think that in a capitalistic economy the cheapest solution is not always the best?
One option is to give the federal government more power in making decisions for renewable energy sites and new transmission lines, but the prospect of increased government intervention is already causing politicians to butt heads on the Climate Bill. Another option is to use government policy that sweetens the deal for proximity to new energy solutions. (For Liberals, this would mean tax people the farther they get from renewable energy. For Conservatives, it would mean provide subsidies for those willing to live next door. For me, I would say do both.)
Yet another possibility is to redesign these facilities for a new aesthetic reading. After all, most of the time these components of infrastructure are designed by engineers. As an architect, I can respect and appreciate the simplicity and functional efficiency of how engineers design. Their goal of streamlined products that serve a specified purpose can be seen in old warehouses, factories and power stations. Nonetheless, they are usually not trying to win beauty contests. Some of these creations could not get a facelift to draw a different impression from surrounding onlookers.
Spanish architecture firm Abalos and Herreros has a portfolio of work that has reinvestigated the appearance and nature of industrial programs like their recycling center in Valdemingómez, Spain. Contrary to the American standard of cheap metal siding and standing seam roofs, their facility is wrought with light to illuminate a terraced interior designed with an elegant order for industrial function. Solar farms and biomass plants could conceivably be realized in a second generation that is more viewer-friendly.
I do not believe that the largest impediment in the path of environmental stewards is convincing people that changes should be made. Regardless of the debate on climate change, sustainability and efficiency just make sense. Preserving our resources, keeping our air, water and land clean; it is just smart and more people realize that everyday. The impasse is instilling not the notion, but the drive for everyone to contribute and accept part of the collective onus to change—and make no mistake, things will need to change. Sustainability is not a technological fix. Our levels of consumption cannot be supplemented with gizmos.
Personally, I think that wind turbines and CSP plants have their own manner of beauty to them, like an ipod or a 40” Samsung LCD television, but I do not know if my sentiment has reached the majority yet.
Photo Credit: Flickr via AbracaDebra