Image by The Library of Congress via Flickr

A recent screening of an in-progress film, The Architecture of Life by Stephen Kellert and Bill Finnegan at the Yestermorrow School in Waitsfield, Vermont, started me thinking about the connection — or more possibly the disconnection — between biophilic design and environmental design. The former focuses its efforts on the user, attempting to provide a better environment for living, in both seeking shelter and experiencing the natural world. The latter requires only that design address the external: the building’s impact on the environment. I would argue that when done right, environmental design should address both the external impacts and the user’s internal needs, as encompassed by the tenets of biophilic design.

Defining the Terms

For those of you that aren’t familiar with the idea of biophilia, it is a term that has been popularized in some fields while remaining virtually unknown in others. The concept, first introduced by Erich Fromm in 1964 and popularized by Edward O. Wilson in 1984, can be described as the biological need to connect with the natural world, or the attraction towards that which is alive. The idea of biophilic design is the natural extension of this concept, and posits that since humans inherently seek connections with the living world, architecture and design should nurture this contact in order to create a favorable environment for humans.

As someone working in the architectural field, understanding this concept is unquestionably important, but it is also important to the entire population. All of us are affected by the environment in which we live and work, even more so than we might realize. For most of us, the majority of our time is spent indoors, within these built environments. Though the statistics might be slightly different for Vermonters, the average American spends an almost inconceivable 90% of her/his time indoors. With this in mind, and understanding on a deeper level why some buildings are a joy in which to live and work, while others contribute to a negative experience, the importance of (and path to) seeding an architectural revolution becomes clear.

Telling the Story

Kellert and Finnegan’s movie is doing the important early work of collecting the anecdotes and the statistical knowledge base that starts to frame this new understanding of the built environment. A compelling storyline in the movie discusses the long-term benefits of building better schools, as taken from a 2006 report “Greening America’s Schools: Costs and Benefits” by Gregory Kats.

The upfront cost of greening schools, while at least roughly following the tenets of biophilic design, is on average 2% more than not doing so, or an extra $3 per square foot. These well-designed schools provide better learning environments and ultimately higher test scores for their students, alongside the better recognized energy and water costs savings. What is more amazing in this study is the quantification of this small investment in green building, in terms of the potential future earnings of the students. The better learning environment and test scores on average result in a $49 per square foot increase in future earnings. As these long-term benefits of good design continue to be recognized, a transformative change could take place in the market, advancing our built environment into its next evolutionary stage.

Envisioning the Future

It is my hope that the stories of good design begin to reach a larger audience and spur more of us to request the best from our built environment. Offices no longer need to be windowless rooms filled with endless rows of cubicles, lit by flickering fluorescent lights. Hospital rooms need not be painted in sterile tones, filled only with bright blinking lights and beeping machinery with no thought of the outdoors or even a leaf moving on the plastic greenery decking the halls and waiting rooms. We have an ability to build better buildings, following the tenets of both biophilic and environmental design. The places we live and work can nurture the environment through the use of sustainable materials, by producing more energy than they consume, and by being places we truly want to spend time — as relaxing as a mountain spa, as vibrant as a bustling marketplace, and as productive as well-managed farmland.

The post Finding Harmony : Biophilic Design & Environmental Design first appeared on Net Zero Energy Vermont.

Now as a self-professed word nerd, I recognize you may think this concern about terminology is my problem. Yet Wikipedia’s neutral point of view requires no less than six distinct definitions for ZEBs, including interesting differences between use of the term in the United States, Canada, and the rest of the world. (Note that in addition to ZEBs, Wikipedia adds additional definitions with separate entries for green buildings and sustainable architecture.)

Why does it matter?

Buildings consume over 40 percent of all energy and over 70 percent of all electricity used in the United States, and are responsible for about 40 percent of US carbon dioxide emissions. If there’s any hope of mitigating the effects of climate change, we need to get this right. Instead it sometimes feels as if, (excuse me), all our energy is being used to debate fine distinctions that do not matter in the larger scheme of things. (Shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic comes to mind.)

Image via Wikipedia

Major Greenhouse Gas Trends

<<<<<<

Net-Zero as a Journey

I have written before about my aversion to thinking of net zero energy as a single end point.

I tend to think of net zero energy as a mindset rather than a single end point. True, there are those who favor purity, specific definitions and exact measurements whenever the term net-zero energy is used, but for a layperson like myself interested in change, there’s value in thinking in terms of a never-ending journey rather than a goal achieved.

Celebrate NZEBs

So, buildings use a tremendous amount of energy to operate and are a leading source of greenhouse gas emissions. We climate hawks need to work together. The goal of net-zero building design is to minimize energy use first through energy efficiency, and then meet any remaining energy needs with on-site renewable energy systems. Over the course of a year, these buildings will produce as much energy as they consume. That, to me, is a clear definition of a net-zero energy building. (In contrast, the term zero-energy building falsely implies to me that no energy was used to produce the building.)

If as Orwell wrote, we should use English to reveal rather than conceal, here’s to consistently using one term, net-zero energy building, and applauding every step on the journey to increasing their number. If you are interested in the fine distinctions, be sure to ask for the specifics of the definition being used for a particular structure — but please, only after celebrating the positive step forward.

Resources

• For a Premier Lab, a Zero-Energy Showcase (green.blogs.nytimes.com)
• Are We Nearing Net Zero? Archi-Tech
• Zero Energy Building for NREL Slideshare presentation

The post Net-Zero Energy Buildings: Semantic Antics first appeared on Net Zero Energy Vermont.

One reason is innovation. If net zero energy, or any sustainability practice for that matter, is framed as an end point readily achievable with existing building, efficiency and development practices, what will motivate us to keep trying to do more?

I was reminded of this recently by a post by Chris Milton on Clean Technia entitled “Top Five Clean Tech Gamechangers.” Compiled from the World Wildlife Federation’s “Green Game-changers Databank,” Milton describes five energy innovations in development, but with great potential.

My favorite is the idea of energy from footsteps, by Pavegen. It just seems so fitting to convert the human energy in high footfall areas into clean electricity. Pavegen’s paving slabs generate energy from footsteps to power street lighting, information signage, and other energy needs in shopping areas, commuter stations, stadiums — just imagine! From Milton’s post:

How It Works: Each paving slab on a busy sidewalk gets stepped on over 50,000 times each day. Specially designed rubber slabs (made from recycled tyres) move a minuscule 5mm with each footfall, capturing the kinetic energy and converting it into electricity. This can then be used to power pedestrian lighting, shop displays, etc.

Progress To Date: Field trials are being conducted around the UK in 2010. The company’s aim is to have them installed in Times Square and Disneyland by the end of 2011.

Here’s Pavegen’s product demonstration video from a UK trade show last year.

It’s innovations like this that make me favor net zero energy as a mindset rather than an end point. Do you agree?

Resources

“Top Five Clean Tech Gamechangers,” by Chris Milton in Clean Technia
Pavegen, developer of footfall-to-electricity energy technology
World Wildlife Fund Green Game-Changers, Energy

The post Net Zero Energy and Innovation first appeared on Net Zero Energy Vermont.

Image via Wikipedia

As pleased as I was to see the new Jeffords building at the University of Vermont featured in The Chronicle of Higher Education, I must confess to being somewhat disappointed by the article. Although Dean Tom Vogelmann appears amiable and approachable in the first photograph, the remaining photos do little to convey the “functional elegance” of the exterior or interior design of the new home for plant biology, soil sciences, and life sciences at UVM.

The more important omissions to my mind, however, are details on the myriad steps and design choices made to enable a large building with teaching science labs to minimize its environmental footprint and to be potentially eligible for LEED gold certification. I yearned to know more about how that was accomplished.

True, the teaching landscape featured in the article is interesting, yet I’ve begun to fear we fall further behind in the battle to minimize the effects of climate change whenever we miss an opportunity to inform and educate.

I expected more from a building and grounds feature article in this publication for higher education. But then again, perhaps I’ll be more appreciative of specialized publications such as Greener Buildings News and Sustainable Facility.

Disclosure: I currently serve on the Board of Advisors for the UVM College of Agriculture & Life Sciences.

The post Building Design Choices at UVM first appeared on Net Zero Energy Vermont.

Image by climatesafety via Flickr

I’m jealous. I know it’s not becoming, but I can’t help it. We’ve been outdone not once, but twice. As a firm believer in the theory you’ll never get there if you don’t set a stretch goal, a BHAG, it’s inspiring but galling to find out from Alex Steffen and Amanda Reed that Britain has reaffirmed its goal of becoming Zero Carbon by 2030 (ZCB2030). Seattle, Washington has declared the same goal.

ZCB2030 report
The ZCB2030 report has a time line for implementation, five detailed sections, and a complete bibliography at the end of each major section of the report. It’s a tremendous resource. The report’s authors intend to demonstrate that “Britain has the potential to become a global leader in sustainable technology and policy” — that climate action is an economic development strategy— and spur discussion and debate on how “greenhouse gas emissions could be completely eliminated from a developed society.”

Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility, Renewable Energy Vermont and others have been singing this song for years – seemingly to little effect.

Rural versus Urban
After commending the report, Steffen and Reed point out: “There are some major flaws and questionable assumptions in the report. One flaw is that it almost completely ignores urban issues, concentrating on green building and transportation, but ignoring planning, infrastructure and the role of services in a bright green city.” While I appreciate the fact that for the first time the majority of the world’s population now lives in urban areas, we should not forget nearly half still live in rural areas like Vermont.

A Question for Vermont Gubernatorial Candidates

It is exactly the focus on green building and transportation in this report that holds such promise for a rural state like Vermont. The Vermont Governor’s Commission on Climate Change came to the same conclusion, but Governor Douglas ignored its recommendations. The ZCB2030 report outlines a time line and action plan for an entire country. When can Vermont announce its zero-carbon goal and related economic plan?

It’s a question to be asked of each of our gubernatorial candidates.

Related articles by Zemanta

• A New, Bold Plan for a Carbon-Neutral UK by 2030 (worldchanging.com)

The post Zero Carbon Britain before Zero Carbon Vermont? first appeared on Net Zero Energy Vermont.

A recent opinion piece by Alec Appelbaum in the New York Times caught my eye. In “Don’t LEED Us Astray,” Appelbaum wrote about the promise represented by the grand opening of 1 Bryant Park, a new LEED platinum-certified office tower in New York city. The tower is the first to rate platinum, the highest level of certification from the United States Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design program, known as LEED, which is recognized as “the most widely used green-building measure.”

The LEED program, which awards points for incorporating eco-friendly material and practices into buildings’ design and construction, has led to a sea change in the industry, introducing environmental awareness into everything from regulatory processes to rents.

But while the standard is well-intentioned, it is also greatly misunderstood. Put simply, a building’s LEED rating is more like a snapshot taken at its opening, not a promise of performance. Unless local, state and federal agencies do their part to ensure long-term compliance with the program’s ideals, it could end up putting a shiny green stamp on a generation of unsustainable buildings.

The Performance Gap

Image via Wikipedia

It’s this intersection between market forces and effective change strategies that interests me. Applebaum acknowledges the LEED program was intended to be simply a set of guidelines for architects and engineers, rather than a standard for building performance. But the marketing value of LEED certification is a proven factor driving rental and resale pricing, and that’s where the problem has arisen, which Applebaum clearly recognizes:

Such market-driven motives wouldn’t matter — if LEED in fact measured energy performance. But it can’t: some certified buildings end up using much more energy than the evaluators predicted, because the buildings are more popular than expected or busy at different times than developers forecast, or because tenants ignore or misuse green features. Bike racks merely encourage cycling to work, and operable windows merely offer the opportunity to use less air-conditioning.

The Green Building Council reformed the system last year to reflect actual energy use by having owners report annual performance data. But that’s not enough detail to measure energy consumption accurately, and there’s no clear way to repeal certification if tenants or owners miss their energy-saving targets. As a result, a five-year-old building can turn into an energy hog and still carry its LEED designation.

Solutions
How can we fulfill the promise of improved performance by building on LEED certification guidelines? Applebaum notes the solution “isn’t to replace the system, but to supplement it.” He suggests government agencies provide subsidies and tax credits that could be reduced or eliminated if building performance does not measure up.

We all know money talks, but initiating and establishing such programs at the government level takes time – and I’m wondering if it wouldn’t be more effective as well as faster to simply develop and publicize new norms for post-construction commissioning, as advocated by Yale360, in combination with annual reporting of performance, using the IMVP, or the International Measurement & Verification Protocol. The impact of norms is a well-established principle of behavior change. If every new building, and especially every new LEED-certified building, began publishing its annual energy use measurement and verification report, it might not take long to close the gap between LEED promise and performance.

So, the next time you hear a claim about a building’s LEED certification, how about asking what its annual performance report shows?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Op-Ed Contributor: Making Eco-Friendly Construction Work (nytimes.com)
• Bank of America Tower at One Bryant Park is First Commercial Skyscraper in U.S. to Achieve LEED Platinum (prweb.com)

The post LEED buildings: The Gap between Promise and Performance first appeared on Net Zero Energy Vermont.

Klugman begins in a matter of fact way by observing that in the debate over climate economics, the “casual reader might have the impression that there are real doubts about whether emissions can be reduced without inflicting severe damage on the economy.” He then goes on to explain in significant detail why among environmental economists there is widespread agreement this is not so, regardless of country of origin or political persuasion.

After detailing the emissions problem, Krugman moves on to a dispassionate and detailed explanation of the costs of correcting the effects of climate change. His conclusion: “We know how to limit greenhouse gas emissions. We have a good sense of the costs — and they’re manageable. All we need now is the political will.”

I would have been satisfied if the article ended at this point, but Krugman moves on to detail the basics of the case for a market-based program to combat the problem carbon emissions represents. I have always had personal reservations about the potential for any significant impact resulting from a so-called cap-and-trade program. As a long-time believer in the power of many small acts by individuals, I had difficulty accepting the idea that my individual acts like walking instead of driving would simply free up additional carbon credits for large corporations to purchase so they could pollute more. Yet Krugman moves on to make a convincing case for the greater benefits of cap-and-trade, in particular when combined with a carbon tax and additional regulation for coal.

But this is a lengthy article worth reading. Krugman continues on to explore the key question of how to impose limits on carbon. He posits that the difficult question isn’t, as you might imagine,  whether to opt for a carbon tax or cap-and-trade. Rather, it is whether in either of those systems, the carbon price should be ramped up quickly or slowly. It’s easy to agree with Krugman that politicians lack the courage to impose a carbon tax substantive enough to effect change, nor will the public demand it until the effects of climate change are so advanced as to be irreversible. In comparison, the alternative of major investments in green infrastructure and a push to encourage research into alternatives to carbon-intense activities will seem reasonable. These activities wouldn’t be cheap, but they’d be easier to bear than an immediate price of $200 per ton of carbon. And politically, such measures should go down easier, given that they entail the doling out of government resources rather than the imposition of a tax on a negative and intangible externality.

The entire article progresses step by step into a full-blown green economics primer 101. Each term is defined; every key concept addressed. Krugman builds his case in a convincing, neutral frame, which preempts marginalization or premature rejection by the reader on the grounds of obvious bias. There’s a communication lesson here as well as an economic one for those interested in affecting public opinion or systemic change. A quick thank-you hug seems appropriate.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Building a Green Economy (New York Times)
• Al Gore says to read this article (ruffingtonpost.com)
• Krugman on incentivizing a green economy (increaseourtaxes.com)
• Krugman on the climate apocalypse (themoderatevoice.com)
• Does Paul Krugman Vastly Understate the Economic Argument for Climate Action? (worldchanging.com)

The post A Must-Read: Krugman’s Building a Green Economy first appeared on Net Zero Energy Vermont.

Meanwhile over at the Worldchanging blog, Alex Steffen thinks faster and wrote an excellent, extensive summary of the speech and its importance. Bill Gates: the Most Important Climate Speech of the Year. “When We Talk Zero, We Sound Crazy. When Bill Gates Does It, Bankers Pick Up the Phone. On Friday, the world’s most successful businessperson and most powerful philanthropist did something outstandingly bold, that went almost unremarked: Bill Gates announced that his top priority is getting the world to zero climate emissions.” Steffen goes on to outline each of the key messages in the Gates speech succinctly, with one exception. He does not mention the nuclear solution.

The reason behind his omission may be explained by this statement: “But when Bill Gates talks zero, he sounds visionary. Gates, whatever else he did Friday, just made the most important idea on the planet mainstream credible. That’s a big, big deal.” Steffen seems to have made a calculated decision: “I will not sacrifice a huge ‘good’ in the name of perfect.”

It’s not as if there aren’t any critical statements about the Gates speech. Steffen acknowledges flaws. He simply chooses to highlight the flaws in Gates’ case that might keep us from moving ahead toward a zero emission future. “http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/010976.html.”

Several commentators took Steffen on for the omission of the strong nuclear element in Gates’ talk. “Not a single comment on his nuclear power ambitions? Kind of a big thing to leave out of a summary, don’t you think?” asked Tod Brilliat. It’s Steffen’s response that makes clear his choice: “I’ve talked quite a bit about how I don’t think nuclear power is a smart (or necessary) way to go, so obviously I differ with Gates on that. For that matter, I think CCS “clean coal” technologies are a crock, too. But I really don’t think that’s what’s important here. I think the goal of zero emissions is much, much more significant than choice of energy path (or even whether to emphasize clean energy generation or a more holistic approach). If we can agree on that goal as a society, all sorts of changes will tumble forward.”

Reluctantly, I must agree with Steffen. Nuclear energy is a distraction, a red herring in this context. The goal of zero emissions, and Bill Gates’ endorsement of that goal, is where our focus needs to be for meaningful change.

The post Bill Gates and Zero, A Second Take first appeared on Net Zero Energy Vermont.

My mind is having difficulty grappling with that thought. What do you think?

Bill Gates at TED 2010: Climate and Energy

The post Bill Gates TED discussion on Energy and Zero carbon footprint first appeared on Net Zero Energy Vermont.

The S.E.C., on a party-line 3-2 vote, issued “interpretive guidance” to help companies decide when and whether to disclose matters related to climate change. The commission said that companies could be helped or hurt by climate-related lawsuits, business opportunities or legislation and should promptly disclose such potential impacts. Banks or insurance companies that invest in coastal property that could be affected by storms or rising seas, for example, should disclose such risks, the agency said.

Via S.E.C. Says Companies Should Disclose Climate-Related Risks – NYTimes.com.

United States Securities and Exchange Commission official seal

Can anyone think of a company that won’t feel an impact one way or the other as the climate goes nuts? It’s easy to grasp that if you have a plant in a hurricane zone, then big trouble. But what if you don’t, but your main competitor does? Big boon. What if neither you nor your competitors have plants there, but your main customer does? Mucho big trouble. Closer to home here in Vermont, what if you run a tiny clothing store, and you’ve made a good living selling parkas and ski clothes. The snow melts too soon – or doesn’t come at all, and Chapter 11, here you come. And the ski areas, lodges and restaurants will follow closely after you. Our food and natural resources-based companies would be hard hit — maple syrup producers, Christmas tree farmers, and crop producers devastated by the greater spread of insects and diseases that survive in warmer, wetter conditions. (The Vermont Governor’s Climate Change Council 2007 Final Report details a list of impacts and recommendations.)

If you accept that the climate is changing, then it seems to me you must accept that every single SEC-regulated company would now have to list how different scenarios would affect its business. Perhaps the thought of all those disclosures frightened the SEC, because a standard disclaimer was added:

“ We are not opining on whether the world’s climate is changing; at what pace it might be changing; or due to what causes. Nothing that the commission does today should be construed as weighing in on those topics.”

Hmm, we are not saying that the climate is changing, but we are saying that you’d better disclose how you will be affected? The language of climate change is certainly rife with mixed messages.

The post Silly S.E.C. — Climate Change Affects Everyone first appeared on Net Zero Energy Vermont.