What's coming: environmental crisis or sustainability?

In An Essay on the Principal of Population (1798), Thomas Malthus argued that world’s population would eventually and inevitably outgrow the resources available to sustain it. His ideas have been very influential as late as Paul Ehrlich’s book The Population Bomb and Garrett Hardin’s article “The Tragedy of the Commons” (both 1968).

Today many follow the reasoning of Malthus, Ehrlich, and Hardin and vociferously warn that an environmental catastrophe is inevitable unless the world’s governments take drastic action to prevent it. Meanwhile, the world’s population on the whole thrives nicely despite being much larger than Malthus’ greatest nightmare. The doomsayers are wrong for much the same reason that Malthus was wrong. They lack both imagination and faith in individuals and communities to make wise decisions.

Elinor Ostrom won the 2009 Nobel Prize in Economics for her work in debunking Hardin’s article. He had told a parable in which villagers used a common pasture. Each was motivated to get as much use out of the pasture as possible, and together they overused it and destroyed it. Only regulation or private ownership of all resources could prevent this tragedy.

According to Ostrom’s research, many communities have successfully regulated common resources among themselves for centuries. While Hardin’s scenario does indeed happen far to often (witness overfishing of several different species in recent years), it is not inevitable. Successful management of resources at the local level can have as widely beneficial effect as mismanagement has a widely catastrophic effect.

Hardin’s followers insist on sweeping governmental initiatives at the national and international level, despite the fact that distant bureaucracies have a very poor record of adequate management and regulation. Suppose, for example, if the federal government tried to mandate commuting to work by bicycle. That would surely make the argument over President Obama’s health care plan seem like a card party by comparison. And yet if enough city governments build bike trails, people will use them and reduce carbon emissions significantly.

Consider the following facts:

• Cheese makers in the Swiss Alps have successfully managed their commons for 800 years.
• Many (but certainly not all) communities in China have regulated their commons for even longer, and the Chinese reforestation rate exceeds most of the rest of the world.
• The American west seems to have reached peak water in the 1970s, but no one noticed until recently.
• More and more American businesses are turning to green technology to help their bottom line.

The world can make sustainable use of its resources. The more national governments encourage local initiatives (public sector, but especially private sector), the less need there will be for top-down regulation. The question is not whether an environmental catastrophe can be avoided, but if a critical mass of people will see the advantages of more cooperation and longer-term thinking.

Sources:
The Non-Tragedy of the Commons by John Tierney
A Conversation with the 2009 Nobel Prize Winner in Economics by Jennifer Schonberger

Why green buildings are worth the cost

The erection of a “green” school or other public building can easily draw cries of dismay or even outrage, because sustainable design and building cost more than traditional techniques. For the same reason, people planning a new house might shy away from requesting green features that add so much to the upfront cost.

While green buildings are initially more expensive, they cost less to operate. While solar panels or windmills might be nice to have, sustainable design and building do not depend on such features. It is possible to design windows that both let in natural light, thus diminishing the need for artificial lighting, and minimize heat transfer, thus diminishing the costs of heating and air conditioning.

Retractable awnings, carefully placed trees and landscaping, and other design choices can let sunlight into a room without the sun ever shining directly on a window. Programmable thermostats can save money on heating and air conditioning. It is even possible to install occupancy sensors in order to turn lights on automatically and adjust the temperature when someone enters a room and turn the lights off and readjust the temperature when they find that the room has been empty for a certain amount of time.

In recent decades, builders have provided sealed buildings. It is impossible to open windows for fresh air. Initially, it seemed like a good idea, but the air quality in these buildings has too often turned out to be worse than that of outside air. In fact, the effects of poor indoor air quality have been identified as the “sick building syndrome.”

Sustainable design and building pays close attention to interior air quality. The windows open to let in fresh air, but if the outside air is for any reason unhealthy, they close tightly enough to prevent either pollutants from coming in or heat or cooling from escaping. The healthy interior of a green office building can reduce absenteeism and boost productivity as workers are both physically and emotionally healthier. A green house or apartment building likewise helps its residents’ health and ability to work, entertain, run errands, etc.

Because the design of green buildings conserves so much water and energy, the savings will more than cover the initial higher costs, usually within a year. Because sustainable design and building also enhances the health of the building’s occupants, green building also saves money on health and insurance costs. As a result, when it comes time to sell the building, it will command a higher cost.

Besides my own knowledge and experience, much of the content of this post has come from “Benefits of Green Buildings.”  The same author has written in more detail in “Building Green: Which Materials and Techniques Should Be Used in Green Architecture.” The previous post in this blog examined the green design and construction of a luxury hotel.

Sustainable design and building: green and profitable

Is concern for the environment incompatible with running a profitable business? Do "green" processes make new construction too expensive? Dennis Quaintance, CEO of Quaintance-Weaver Restaurants & Hotels, based in Greensboro, North Carolina, didn't think so when he decided to design a new luxury hotel and restaurant. He decided to maximize use of sustainable design and operation principles for his building project.

The Proximity Hotel and Print Works Bistro, which opened in 2007, earned LEED Platinum certification, but didn't cost much more to build than it would have using more conventional techniques. The company's commitment to sustainable design and building demonstrates that a large new development can be both green and profitable.

LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) is the certification program of the U.S. Green Building Council. It provides independent verification that a building meets certain standards for energy savings, water efficiency, reduction of carbon dioxide emissions, the quality of its indoor environment, stewardship of natural resources, and sensitivity to environmental impact of its construction and operation.

Besides using 39% less energy and 33% less water, Quaintance-Weaver recycled construction debris, used recycled content, cut down on transportation costs by maximizing use of locally produced building materials and furnishings, provided natural daylight to nearly all of the occupied space, commissioned art for the guest rooms from local artists and provided adjacent temporary studio space for them, and even restored 700 feet of a stream on the property. Altogether, the design and construction of the hotel used more than 70 different sustainable practices.

The Proximity Hotel's sustainable design cost less than $7,000 more to build than using conventional design and construction techniques. In its first year of operation, it saved more that $13,000 on water use alone. One hundred solar panels heat the water for bathing and dish-washing in place of a conventional gas or electric water heater. The hotel that cost a little more to build wound up saving much more back in reduced operating costs. Green. Profitable.