Let's Have a Serious Discussion

I'd like to share and open further discussion that began as a sarcastic response to Dan Smith's blog post yesterday about overpopulation. Fellow architect Steve Sunderman responded with a thought provoking comment that inspired me to further modify Dan Smith's graphic that describes the issue:

Eldon L Karr-Architect shared a link via Dan Smith.

23 hours ago
So what's the solution? Cool Cities Coalition might help. The answer to come.

fromtheeditr: What the World Needs Now ... Is More People
www.fromtheeditr.blogspot.com

Comments:
Steve Sunderman: People do what people do. I would hope that we not adopt a one child policy like China has. I believe that we need to do all we can to conserve resources and find new & better ways of accommodating inevitable population growth, affluence and climate change. That is why I promote conservation, recycling and renewable energy sources.

Eldon L Karr-Architect:
‎Steve Sunderman,
I agree a one child policy is rather extreme, but our country does not yet have a population exceeding 1 billion. As population growth continues to accelerate, it may be unwise to accept it as inevitable and infinite. Mos...t are not willing to accept the idea of curbing our insatiable appetite for affluence. (I'm glad you included that observation.)

We are on the same page regarding conservation and recycling.

As I understand, all of our energy comes from the sun (99.999999999%). Our sun is on the wane and climate change is inevitable. Since the late 1960's & early 70's I have advocated and promoted seeking alternative forms of usable energy and energy storage. This has included capturing energy from the wind to be used as a point of use based supplement, not distributed under the guise of an unending commodity over the corporate controlled convenience of the transmission/distribution grid thus encouraging ever greater consumption and inefficiency.

I believe that nature itself takes care of renewing and storing resources better than we as human beings can ever hope to. I believe it is our charge, particularly as professional architects, to communicate the correct understanding of these matters to the general population. And even more importantly, to promote and advocate efficiency and conservation through point of use based generation systems. while unrelentingly pursuing cost based evaluation of built-environment design.
It is far short of being enough to just advocate "green" and "renewable" (both terms being sorely misunderstood)

and the conversation continues:
Steve Sunderman: Eldon, I agree with many of your points. I understand that their is an inefficiency factor with the industrial wind application and I know that the Tea Party folks are strongly against any financial incentives for renewable energy R&D, but I believe that renewable energy sources are far better than fossil fuel sources in many ways, but renewables cannot compete yet mostly because of lack of demand (costs & availability). It is my premise that subsidizing research & development of wind, solar & water power will encourage innovation, efficiency and mass production, which will drive down costs. Then support can be withdrawn as it will be able to stand on its own merits. I am hearing that electrical storage systems are close to reality and when & if that happens, there is a new ball game. I think that our future power systems may not even be apparent to us today as we cannot even imagine what the future holds, provided we continue to want and encourage such innovation.

Steve Sunderman: Infinite population growth cannot be sustained. When such growth becomes overwhelming it will self-correct, probably in not very nice ways. Think what our population would be today if there had never been any wars. When there is not enough water or food, people will fight for their survival. My hope is that we voluntarily manage growth and earth's resources. Our resources are finite. Did you know that if everyone on earth used resources of a typical American, it would take 5 planets of resource production to supply the demand?

Eldon L Karr-Architect: Steve, First let's remove political references from the discussion as I don't believe the answer to the question of our energy consumption lies within any political encampment. Personally, although in my earlier years I strongly identified with the Democrats and a liberal ideology, I have found difficulty in committing allegiance to any political party since the mid 1980's. Albeit, McClain, Christopolus and many others have attempted to pigeon-hole me with the TEA Party.

Of course, I am strongly in support of government sponsorship of research & development. As a nation, I believe we are making a huge mistake pulling out of our manned space program. I think solar, geo-thermal, hydro(tidal) and fusion are currently where our research and development should be focused. I think we should provide incentives to consumers to install site-based electrical generation through vehicles like the PACE program, thereby encouraging conservation.

Industrial scale generation with wind turbines imposes far too much environmental damage to promote further development with the existing technology. Further, the development incentives are far beyond reasonable expectation of return ($23+/- per Mwh compared to $1.50 per Mwh and less for all other sources of generation).

I appreciate your interest in entering into this discussion. Recently, I have started a new blog:
http://thearchitectsstudio.blogspot.com/
I'd like nothing better than to either move this conversation there or to:
http://bentmountain.blogspot.com/
I believe that a lot more people would benefit in those venues.
Best regards

Eldon L Karr-Architect: Wow! I was preparing my response prior to receiving your next comment.
No, I wasn't aware that Americans were THAT gluttonous. Let's keep this discussion going. Maybe invite a few more intelligent, conscientious architect who would like to make a difference.
We must, however, leave enough time for doing.

Steve Sunderman: Good points. I must admit that I am not nearly as well versed on the details as you are. My support for wind & solar energy is a general principle based on a bias toward renewable energy sources as a means to wean ourselves from fossil fuels. I do not pretend to have all the answers, but I know that new concepts or technology is always met with a great deal of resistance and I just want to leave this place a little better for my children & grandchildren if at all possible. "We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."

Eldon L Karr-Architect I do believe we can make a positive difference for our children, let's just not have so many of them for a while ;)

Why we Love Bent Mountain

This Appalachian Mountain community of people, nestled along the Blue Ridge, in the most northern tip of the great Blue Ridge Plateau, has treasured a unique lifestyle for generations as a result of the unique topography of the region.

A Work still in progress. Send thoughts to tell the stories of Our treasured community.

Here is an example:

On Facebook, Carl F Bagby wrote, "special place ...special people... to bad the county supervisors don't agree."


March 5 at 1:27pm · Bent Mountain, Virginia wrote:
We'll keep it special, regardless.
I like to believe this plateau served communities of people long before the European migration, because the natural surface drainage to a central fertile basin, (and a defensible perimeter). For those reasons, the communities' love for this "place" seems to have coalesced into a strong sense of spiritual strength within the people.


March 5 at 2:00pm

DON'T THROW THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATHWATER

Here's a book that nails it. I believe this book fairly describes why I am disturbed, as an environmentally sensitive architect, by the programs of the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) and the LEED certification program. Todd Myers perspective also reveals why we all will lose if this war continues to be waged as a socio-political battle between extremists on the battlefield of conservatism and liberalism.

I have not read this book, but have read the intro on Amazon.com and other sites, while eagerly awaiting a hard copy:

Eco-Fads: How the Rise of Trendy Environmentalism Is Harming the Environment, by Todd Myers, will likely be the best psychology book you've ever read. For people with logical, analytical minds, green extremism can be quite exasperating. Myers helps those of us who value facts and reason understand what motivates environmental extremists.

Myers spent many years working as an environmentalist in state government. Along the way he kept his eyes and mind open to the conflicts between maintaining a healthy environment and how so many varied interests use the environment to further their own selfish interests. As a result, Myers understands these issues better than anyone I have encountered in a half-century of work on environmental battlefields.

Green Building Myths Exposed
In his introductory chapter, he takes on myths about green buildings. A prime goal of environmental activists is to force builders to incorporate green designs and maximize energy efficiency. The activists claim the upfront costs of building green more than pay for themselves in the long run. Myers, however, cuts through the fuzzy math to show how green buildings are almost always prohibitively costly and are often (and ironically) bad for the environment.

As an example, environmental activists claim green buildings provide more fresh air, which reduces the potential for "sick buildings" and cuts down on sick days and absenteeism. The reduction in lost worker time more than pays for the additional upfront construction costs, the activists say. Myers persuasively shows none of this is true.

Much Money, Few Benefits
Wasting money on efforts that produce no tangible environmental benefit should be condemned. Increasingly, however, the opposite is happening. Myers notes, "rather than judging policies based on their results, eco-fads grow in popularity based on their ability to confer a green image to those who embrace them."

True environmentalism, Myers says, should not be aimed at projecting a carefully crafted and appealing image that simply feels environmentally progressive. Yet green buildings, reusable grocery bags, bio fuels, and solar panels do little more than that. These eco-fads signal to our peers that we are not only thrifty and intelligent but also profoundly moral.

What adherence to these eco-fads really signals is that a great many people are ignorant of science and profoundly gullible.

Explaining the Lure of Eco-Fads

Eco-Fads explains why we fall for such schemes when we should know better. Who doesn't want to be green? That natural desire can cloud our better judgment.

It shouldn't be surprising that some companies see business opportunities in the growth of eco-fads. Products that claim to be greener not only offer differentiation from similar products made by competitors but also cater to consumers with greater disposable income.

The average person who wishes to be environmentally responsible is bombarded by conflicting messages encouraging him or her to embrace fads that offer solutions to environmental threats. Few people have the time, interest, or expertise to test the claims they hear. In the midst of a busy life there is little incentive to ask, "Do bio fuels really reduce carbon emissions? Are polar bears really threatened by global warming? Are hybrid poplars really a solution to intensive forestry and clear-cutting?"

This confusion is compounded by the natural desire of individuals to believe they are doing good without engaging in much sacrifice. Myers explains brilliantly how eco-fads are emotionally satisfying because they offer easy solutions that cut through confusion while allowing individuals to derive the emotional satisfaction of protecting the planet.

Power of Peer Pressure
Add the peer pressure to carry green shopping bags, install compact fluorescent bulbs, and drive hybrid vehicles, and we have what appears to be an almost irresistible force.

Environmental activists understand social pressure is a powerful force. They enlist movie actors to narrate ads, and fashion magazines make greenness a fashion statement.

The result of these influences is that eco-fads, once established, are difficult to dislodge. Who wants to admit their actions to save the planet do not actually promote the values they have publicly embraced?

Unintended Environmental Damage

This faddism is actually bad for the environment. Myers shows conclusively that with increasing frequency eco-fads are counterproductive, doing more damage to the environment than they prevent and drawing energy and resources away from real solutions. However, people mentally filter out information that may call into question the effectiveness of environmental policies or purchases; instead, they exaggerate the perceived benefits.

Recognizing these influences can help us be more alert to the potential flaws in green policies and causes. It also helps us understand the frustrating tendency of environmental discussions to become highly emotional and personal. Eco-fads endure because they appeal to some important human characteristics, such as the desire to feel good about the decisions we are making and our need for acceptance by our peers.

With what you will learn from this book, you will be better able to shake off the hypnotic spell of green mythology and return to sound environmental thinking. Buy this book for every reasonable person on your Christmas list. And if I have failed to convince you of this yet, I may try again in the next issue of Environment & Climate News.

Review by Jay Lehr, Ph.D
(jlehr@heartland.org) is science director of The Heartland Institute.