c. “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”
d. You learned what it meant in Kindergarten – “don’t take more than you share”
2. Sustainability is all about the environment.
a. The concept around sustainability originally dealt with income gap issues surrounding poverty by giving disadvantaged countries access to natural resources in order to create a more balanced lifestyle/world
b. “We have an economy where we steal the future, sell it in the present, and call it GDP.” - Paul Hawken (among others) – This debate isn’t whole heatedly about the environment, climate change or the polar ice caps; sustainability touches so many more aspects of our lives including the recent global financial crisises which were created by money hogs breaking rule 1.d. above…
c. Sustainability is definitely about the environment though…
i. We borrow money from the future to buy oil, degrade land in the process, spill it in our oceans, drink that water, burn that oil, make that plastic, pollute our homes, air and water with the plastic chemicals, throw out the plastic, pollute land and water when it doesn’t bio-degrade, drink the water, eat the food, and the process starts all over again when we consume more.
3. Sustainable is a synonym for “green.”
a. Some overlap but i whole heatedly disagree that they are or can be used synonymously.
i. Green usually means some preference for natural over artificial where as sustainability is a systems based thinking approach to lasting human creations – economic systems, enviro systems, building systems, etc.
4. It’s all about recycling.
a. Yes it is true that a more efficient use of pretty much anything is a step in the right direction towards sustainability.
b. However in terms of sustainability, the most important areas are as follows:
i. Energy
ii. Transportation
c. If you think you are living green or being sustainable by recycling you are gravely mistaken my friend
5. Sustainability is too expensive.
a. Only true when you try to fit a square peg in a round hole
i. Forcing the situation when something is already in place is no way to solve a need for intelligent systems based thinking
b. When thought about and applied early early early in a decision process, the most sense is derived.
6. Sustainability means lowering our (the American) standard of living
a. Not at all true – standards of living should be measured by the happiness of the people living. Americans are among the most UN-Happy people in the world yet hold the highest standard of living on a wealth-based system.
b. “Addressing climate change is the biggest job creation program there is.”
c. Technology and Innovation stem from the principles of sustainability
7. Consumer choices and grassroots activism, not government interventions offer the fastest, most efficient routes to sustainability.
a. CO2 global reductions need to happen from leadership – whether that be corporate or government, we need leaders in this area.
b. Carbon Tax Emissions – while they would be wildly unpopular, their is little doubt is most economists minds that their effectiveness would yield the results we need.
i. Think about it this way… – At this current point in time, you can negatively impact the future (smoking, burning, polluting air & water, and most importantly, consuming) as much as you’d like and not pay for it. * As a side note, a federal consumption tax along with environmental taxes would curb all of the above issues.
c. Free market thinkers don’t like this because it potentially stifles freedom. I would agree however I realize the importance. One of the greatest free market thinkers of all time – Milton Freedman – agrued that government should only step in and exert their effect when 3rd parties are affected by an outcome. He said that we shouldn’t be regulating seat belts and air bags as their presence in the car has no potential adverse affect on a 3rd party in a car crash between 2 people. Makes sense and I agree. Pollution and/or financial corruption (as seen in the recent market crash) affects everyone and therefor humanity is the 3rd party. We need government intervention in those cases.
8. New technology is always the answer.
a. Not always…
b. Proper tire inflation in your car is a conservation technique that requires no new technology and is one of the fastest way to return value.
b. Battery exchange programs are incredibly effective ways of utilizing continued resources.
c. Turning up/down thermostats to appropriate settings or turning off heating/cooling systems when not in use is another conservation technique that requires no new technology – just common sense and a memory.
9. Sustainability is ultimately a population problem.
a. Yes to some extent…
b. But that will take generations
i. We don’t have that time
10. It’s just too hard…
a. Creating a sustainable fuel source from corn based Ethanol is too hard and converting every car in the world is too hard but
i. Energy intensity of producing fuel from corn
b. Tradeoffs needs to be analyzed by detailed Life Cycle Costing Models
Once you understand the concepts, living sustainably is a wonderfully rewarding experience
Off Beat and Off Topic:
Sustainability aside, where do you stand?
The immigration law that passed in Arizona has unleashed a landslide of controversy that spans coast to coast. The issue has stirred up enough debate with strong feelings splitting both sides that several cities in California are enacting the equivalent of a state embargo on Arizona businesses. Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Berkeley are the first to take a stand against the law that has been assumed to perpetrate racial profiling, but what does this law mean really?
There have been several arguments from the leftists warning that this law will allow for the legal racial profiling of Hispanic Americans by state law enforcement officials. The current allegations from the far left is that police will have the authority and the responsibility of stopping random people on the street if they have dark skin and dark hair, effectively harassing them and bypassing all due process. This would be a grave mistake on the part of any officer because it would be a violation of the constitution and the very fabric on which our country has been based. This kind of outright profiling would not be tolerated on the streets, much less pass in courts.
This is an extreme misconception of the way that this law will or should be enforced. Police will NOT be able to stop people just because of the way they look; however, law enforcement will be required to check the identification of any person who has “lawful contact” with them. This would require people to carry a driver’s license or some kind of identification while they are being arrested or filing police complaints. At first glance, this may seem like it would scare illegal immigrants from filing any kind of official report against harassment or legitimate problems that we all experience, but, the thing is, illegal immigrants are generally too scared to have any contact with authorities anyways and avoid filing legal complaints or ask for help at all costs. Generally, most people already carry their driver’s license or identification with them anyways because they need it for various reasons, so this would not inconvenience law abiding citizens in any substantial way.
This sweeping immigration reform has been enacted in response to an admitted long standing problem from both sides of the argument. There is no controversy over whether or not our southern border is too porous, the controversy is how do we fix this problem? For the past several decades, president after president has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into our border security, but nothing has worked. Strategies from giant fences to border patrols have failed time and again, but it was never as imperative an issue as it is now that Mexican drug cartels are openly killing each other in the streets and corruption has run deep into the government. It has gotten to the point where the government cannot control its own populace and the dangers of the drug trade have spilled over to the consciousness of Americans. Have you ever had a friend roughed up by the policia in a Mexican tourist town only to have them drive your friend to an ATM where they demand $200 from him or threaten him with jail if he refuses to comply? This is the kind of widespread corruption that undermines Mexican authorities and strikes fear into Arizona suburbs everywhere, not to mention the constant stream of drugs and money that flow to and from America across the border.
This scare of drug smugglers, corrupt policemen, and our sieve of a border is magnified by the recent report that our four decade War on Drugs has not accomplished a thing. US Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske admits that “forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified.” This intensification of our drug problems comes after the drug budget has been increased to $15.1 billion a year, yet tangible results elude our grasps. This abject failure to stem the constant flow of narcotics into our country has provided Arizona the initiative to enact its controversial immigration law.
If the Federal government cannot take care of it, then it is up to the state to fix its own problems. The intense federal opposition to the law comes as a surprise because Arizona’s law mirrors that of the Federal government. The only difference is that Arizona will make a strong effort to enforce it. Unfortunately, this hardline approach to illegal immigration seems like a complete 180 degree from America’s reputation as a bastion of hope and safety for refugees fleeing the persecution and dangers of their homeland. Conservatives will argue that these illegal immigrants are taking American jobs and posing a drain on our public services. The question is, then, “do you want the job these illegals are working?” These jobs are the least desirable of any in the country, involving long hours and intense physical labor while the pay is considerably less than minimum wage. Who is it you think would be willing to take these jobs for that amount of money, even in an economy such as this. Although there is some legitimacy to the complaint that immigrants fill the emergency room asking for free medical care (emergency rooms cannot legally or morally turn anyone away) which we pay for through our taxes. Problems like these are not the norm and the money we lose in taxes to public services that they use is probably less than the $15.1 billion we throw away on a drug war that does nothing.
Now, where do you stand on the immigration law? Where do I stand?… Unfortunately, this is one of those rare instances where I am siding with the Republicans and supporting Arizona in their efforts to fix a long standing problem that seemed to have no end. For decades illegal immigration has plagued America and now that a state is trying to do something about it, just about everyone is trying to take them down for it. At least Arizona is trying something, not just sitting on their hands and complaining about it like the rest of the country. The most important thing is that it is working, illegals have been reporting that they are leaving the state because of the law’s enactment, and some have even told reporters that they will not be bringing their families over from Mexico over as planned. The law has not even gone into enforcement yet and it’s already working. However, this all depends on how the law is enforced by police and other officials in the state of Arizona. If they are going to check identification when someone commits a crime or has some contact with state officials, then we should all be supporting their efforts. The only problem is that it only takes one overzealous police officer to bring a proverbial shit storm down on the entire state, and when that happens there will be riots, demonstrations, and the issue that has already been blown out of proportion will only get bigger. Have no doubt; there will be a pigheaded police officer who screws this up for everybody.
With the 2009 Biopolymer Symposium Event in Chicago around the corner in September, it is important we address the impact these technologies have on our global quest to achieve sustainability.
For a friendly reminder, sustainability is defined as, “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability for future generations to meet their own needs.”
Biopolymers play an important role in this quest. That is because biopolymers are renewable, sustainable, and can be carbon neutral.
Biopolymers (also called renewable polymers) are produced from biomass for use in the packaging industry. Biomass comes from crops such as sugar beet, potatoes or wheat: when used to produce biopolymers, these are classified as non food crops.
In terms of biomass, biopolymers can be converted using the following process
Today attention is paid to one of two things regarding green building: energy cost reductions and/or the coveted LEED Plaque. Both are important – one to demonstrate return on investment while the other showcases a company’s ability to “walk the walk.” However within the world of commercial office space, one component of green building should shine above all else – impact of indoor environments on the people who occupy them.
If you haven’t read the University of San Diego study titled “Green Buildings and Productivity,” then you may be missing the largest piece of why green building is so important. The question that CBRE’s Director of Sustainability and folks from the Journal of Sustainable Real Estate address in “Green Buildings and Productivity” is relevant to triple bottom line thinkers but hones in on the crux of why traditional bottom line thinkers are still not sold on green. Green Builders continue their inability to convey value through delivered tangible and tractable economic benefits. Why is this?
The USGBC has failed to convey the importance of life cycle costs to owners and developers and while an overwhelming number of buildings continue to be certified (now over 6000 commercial spaces bear the logo), the meat of the value equation lies in productivity. The question we need to ask is “Do green buildings provide more productive and sustainable environments for workers than non-green buildings, and if so, what is that value?” This question has rarely been addressed and since it bears relative importance, we must first understand the 3 main workforce trends driving this ideal:
1. Gen Y
This group of up and comings are integral to any organization and that trend will only be augmented in the next 10 years – Gen Ys refuse to be part of traditional office environments and have leverage even in today’s job environment.
2. Communication
Office communication is increasingly crucial – team environments and sharing of ideas in the fast pace of today’s world, even more so. Traditional office environments often lack the parameters to foster this type of productivity.
3. Employee Costs
Productivity loss and sick days cost firms the most money and at the same time offer the greatest opportunity for return on investment especially when comparing that to traditional green building efficiencies such as energy and water.
The University of San Diego study finds that an average productivity value added impact per worker to be over $5,000 while the average fewer sick days value added impact per worker was lower at $ 1,250. Combined, that translates to a $153.61/sq ft Net Present Value (Discounted at 10%) and since building green costs relatively little in terms of a total initial increase to project costs, the choice should be as obvious as cost-efficient green buildings’ impact to the bottom line. Since we know that employees and their associated costs are the largest component of most budgets, we must wonder why the correlation between environment and employees is just surfacing. Knowing that a 2008 JLL study found that 70% of corporate executives value sustainability as a “crucial business issue,” we’re left to wonder when the real tipping point for corporate sustainability will begin and the greenwashing will end. As evidence by the overwhelming number of “green” commercial interiors spaces, we certainly know that LEED for Commercial Interiors Certification is where it begins.
After watching this video from an old professor from college I found myself suddenly urged to blog on the topic of money and cash flow:
EBS recently hosted a presentation at our office about “Navigating the Road to Sustainability” which included presentations from Shayna D. Eskew of Green Property Solutions, Ken Kurtzig of iReuse and Matt Macko of Environmental Building Strategies. The night went well and ended up being a success with closing semi intoxicated discussions about Commercial Real Estate Valuation techniques and the difference between the dreaded word “payback” and the more robust Net Present Value.
The video above demonstrates how people feel about cash and the different types of cash – needless to say an interesting topic for everyone because we all have it and usually want more of it… But how does cash relate to sustainability and the decisions that are affecting our planet, our lives and our species vitality.
My hypothesis: Feelings of cash correlate directly with assumptions of sustainability investments.
At the end of the day a dollar is a dollar right? One dollar from one source is no different than the physical and power characteristics of a dollar from another source. They both empower a user with the ability to buy something with a market value of $1 – think McDonalds here…
But what happens when those dollars come from different sources and what happens when those dollars are accounted for dirrerently is at the heart of the sustainability adoption problem we are having.
When people value the cash they have in their 401K or child’s college savings account differently than they value the cash they have in their wallet (otherwise known as disposable income) you inherently have a problem of conscience. People will be unwilling to invest those 401K dollars (assuming all things being equally liquid of course) in investments outside of what they are dedicated to do – save up for retirement, child’s college savings, etc, etc. That creates a problem with energy efficiency and clean energy adoption because right now, no one has CASH on hand. Very few people have “disposable income” and let’s face it, the question of “do i have cash” is the number one we think of needing when we think about traveling, doing projects, or buying things. Energy Efficiency is no different – cash is king. No one has it and no one is willing to part with their savings, retirement or child’s savings account to invest in it. This is true even with the transparency of data out there telling us that investments in sustainability, energy efficiency and conservation practices yield the greatest return on investment possible in today’s society.
Yes you heard me say it – Sustainability offers the greatest Return on Investment – better than stocks, bonds, mutual funds, savings accounts, 401Ks, kitchen + bath upgrades to your overvalued McMansion, or corporate’s advertising budget. For proof look to the study I performed at the end of 2009 comparing the Return on Investment in Google stock being equivalent to that of a lighting retrofit.
Google is all too often considered one of the greatest investments of the 21st century but when you compare a purchase of it’s stock at IPO and sale of that stock 5 years later (end of 2009) to that of a lighting retrofit, you will find that the Returns are virtually equal. Roughly a 200% ROI (5 year horizon).
The video above about perceptions of money compared to our understanding of sustainability valuation helps answer the question of why we can’t adopt faster and saturate quicker as we move toward our goals of being a net zero energy economy, and a carbon free economy.
Recent Comments