How bad is our environmental future and what are the options? (Serious thread alert.)

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
I've decided to pull my head out of the sand momentarily, at least, in regard to environmental issues. How much trouble are we in? It's true that Earth is a finite environment, but is it impossible for technologies to be developed that can sustain our current level of energy use/consumption, and maybe even growth? (I realize that I shouldn't necessarily want that, and that "our" consumption levels vary radically from country to country, or region to region.) I find it hard to believe, for example, that if $87 billion (for example) were invested in researching alternative energies, we still wouldn't be able to replace fossil fuel with alternative sources.

What are good recent (preferably from the last 5 years, but let's say the last 5-10) books (or other sources) on environmental problems?

Rockist Scientist, Monday, 17 November 2003 17:24 (twenty-one years ago)

No thread is a priori serious.

The question is do you think that environmental problems will occur incrementally, hence giving us time to counter them technologically and with lifestyle change, or is it all going to go tits up in the matter of months. Thinking rationally about it last week (instead of watch the Horizon prog), I think probably the latter seems to fit climate change better.

Pete (Pete), Monday, 17 November 2003 17:27 (twenty-one years ago)

i think there'll be a nuclear war before all that 'horizon' stuff ramps up -- a relief?

enrique (Enrique), Monday, 17 November 2003 17:37 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm amazed that they can even suggest that $87 million figure. I'm a bit thick (and not having a particularly intellignet day), but surely they can't predict when we will discover new things, by definition. Can they?

I'm not really sure where to go with the rest of this thread, as there seem to be so many conflicting things being said/argued/discovered about the environment. Like the hole in the ozone layer - so is it not a threat any more? Are we really in danger of a new ice age, and if so, should be pump CFCs into the atmosphere on purpose? Is species extinction a de facto Bad Thing?

Markelby (Mark C), Monday, 17 November 2003 17:48 (twenty-one years ago)

is the species is sharks then no

ryan (ryan), Monday, 17 November 2003 17:49 (twenty-one years ago)

IF the species is sharks, damn.

ryan (ryan), Monday, 17 November 2003 17:50 (twenty-one years ago)

The $87 billion is part of what's being spent on U.S. invasion/reconstruction (?) of Iraq. Alternative energy, or similar research, never gets funded at that level, as far as I know. It's usually got a budget which guarantees its failure.

Rockist Scientist, Monday, 17 November 2003 17:51 (twenty-one years ago)

A problem presumably is that the timescales being looked at are 50 years out, and if the rate of progress in the last 50 years is maintained, the world will be largely unrecognisable by then. It's hard to say that we won't come up with new improvements which will reduce the problem, but it's easy to guess that the energy needs will continue to increase until that time.

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 17 November 2003 18:01 (twenty-one years ago)

What's more interesting is why people develop an interest/obsession with environmental issues. It's a peculiar kind of neurosis (ignoring it is a kind of neurosis too).

Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Monday, 17 November 2003 18:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Spencer, What's neurotic about developing an interest in environmental problems? Isn't that, potentially at least, making healthy, practical, use of one's intelligence?

Rockist Scientist, Tuesday, 18 November 2003 00:59 (twenty-one years ago)

read it and weep - Straw Dogs by john gray

jed (jed_e_3), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 01:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Rockist Scientist, it seems arbitrary to me why people become interested in environmental issues. I find it interesting when people start talking about the dread of overpopulation.

I'm interested in environmental issues, but I find it hard to make definitive statements about them, let alone decide to vandalize Hummer dealerships or March on a powerplant.

There seem to be conflicting opinions on, for instance global warming, and I'm wondering what it is psychically (and politically) that makes the lay-person decide to do something about it. This is a meta-argument, but if it could be explained, then I might become much more of an activist.

I guess I'm just wondering about how to get out of the skeptical relativist loop I find myself in politically.

Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 01:21 (twenty-one years ago)

We're absolutely fucked, as human beings. The planet, however, will be fine. New species will evolve over hundreds of thousands of years.

Andrew (enneff), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 01:33 (twenty-one years ago)

I think I know what you mean when you say arbitrary. When I have become concerned with certain issues, it often seems that I am just ready to take them on in some way. I think I have a tendency to want to periodically reconsider soemthing or other, or consider something I've been neglecting. In fact, I know how this started, or I think I do: I was reading articles on 9/11 (which I do think there is good reason to become obsessive about: it pulls together a lot of strands), and so forth, and one of them said something about fossil fuel being bound to run out in 20 years and the left generally having too much faith in the possibility that alternative energy sources could make up the difference. And shortly after that I came across another article with someone saying, no, the real issue is that the planet just can't handle a continuation of this level of waste production and excess heat. For a long time now, I've tended not to read about environmental issues (even when there are articles about them in magazines or web-sites I read), and it just suddenly seems like a good idea to lift the lid off a little and see how bad the situation might be.

I know what you mean re: global warming. I find it a little confusing, though I haven't actually read much about it. I do wonder if I am even in a position to make a judgment about it, and yet I feel that I ought to try, be a good citizen, etc. Also tend to think that erring on the side of caution, if it can be determined which side that is, is a good idea.

(I have no plans of becoming an activist, though that feels like a remote possibility.)

Rockist Scientist, Tuesday, 18 November 2003 01:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Here's an idea someone proposed to me a little while back:

Most American cities cannot afford to create any sort of comprehensive and meaningful mass transit system anymore, because the amounts of money now needed are simply too damn large - way more than most municipal govts can handle. So...

Take the $87 billion dollars. Put it into a trust fund. You can't touch the principle, but the interest per year would be HUGE. Take those few billion per year, and each year give it to a city specifically to be used to create a highly effective, well-implemented, comprehensive, multi-line mass transit solution. And also set aside a little money towards upgrading our national rail-lines so that people can also use modern rail-based systems to quickly and cheaply move between said cities' mass transit systems.

It wouldn't totally throw off the need for cars (what would, really?), but I think that said plan would probably curb it better than most other ideas.

Discuss?

Girolamo Savonarola, Tuesday, 18 November 2003 01:55 (twenty-one years ago)

it's all about jet packs, you morans.

oops (Oops), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 01:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Spencer, one thing I can say re: apathy, is that when I am tempted to just not care at all about the future of our civilization and our species, I find that when I think about it as the future of individual children who are alive now, I recover from not caring at all. I don't know how you* can look at a child and say: I just don't care about the future.

(*Not you, Spencer, but anyone. I'm not saying that you were saying you don't care, incidentally. But I feel that this is somehow related to your question about motivation for activism. It's not in fact enough to motivate me to be an activist, but it's enough to make me contiue to care and not slip into some sort of nihilist apocalyptic mind-set.)

Rockist Scientist, Wednesday, 19 November 2003 01:06 (twenty-one years ago)

two years pass...
this gives me some hope for the future -- an article about the proliferation of green building going on in new jersey.

It pays to be green

Monday, January 2, 2006

By COLLEEN DISKIN
STAFF WRITER

A new hospital building in Hackensack will have "rooftop meadows" to help keep its rooms cool on a hot day. A school in Somerset County harvests rainwater and uses it to flush toilets. A home in Paterson will run on two kinds of solar power.

The "green" building fad is taking off in New Jersey, and its supporters are as likely to be wearing wingtips as they are sandals.

Along with fervent environmentalists, bastions of Big Business such as Goldman Sachs and PNC Bank are now building with recycled materials, conserving energy and keeping heavy-duty chemicals out of the walls, floors and furnishings. Both companies received a "green" rating for offices they opened in New Jersey in the past two years.

"This is no longer being sold as saving the world. It's being sold as, 'You can make money saving the world.'" said Scott Chrisner, a founder of the New Jersey chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council. "It's not just the long-hairs and the Birkenstocks doing this. It's the suits."

Many businesses resist the green label, referring to their practices as "high-performance building" and "sustainable design." Their reasons for joining the movement are often a bottom-line consideration - some businesses employ alternative energy technologies or water conservation measures simply to cut utility bills.

Others worry about "sick building syndrome" and the potential liability of offices with poor indoor air quality.

The first New Jersey building to be officially certified as "green" by the Green Building Council - the Willow School in Gladstone - was completed in 2004. Five more have been added to the rolls since, including the Goldman Sachs high-rise in Jersey City and three PNC Bank branches. Fifty-eight more buildings are in the pipeline in New Jersey.

In addition, more than 2,100 units in 39 different projects in New Jersey have been built under a program by the New Jersey Green Homes Office. That program offers up to $7,500 per unit in subsidies to builders of affordable homes who spend more to add solar panels, energy-efficient windows, recycled roofing materials, low-emitting paints or other green features. By summer, the agency is hoping to launch a similar incentive program for builders of market-rate housing, said Darren Port, program director.

Nationally, most of the green building has been commercial or public buildings, projects large enough for it to be easier for accountants to grasp the long-term benefit of spending 3 percent to 5 percent more in construction costs to have lower costs in the future.

Some companies see opportunity in being able to sell a green building product or attract eco-conscious investors, Chrisner said. In August, the Dow Jones created a "Sustainability Index" for North American companies. The investor rating grades a company not just on its worth but on environmental and social factors, including how much energy the firms use and how much pollution they generate.

Across the country, 399 buildings have been certified by the Green Building Council. But the more telling number is the 3,073 in the building stages, said spokeswoman Taryn Holowka.

The numbers are also expected to grow rapidly in New Jersey as the government encourages - and sometimes mandates - the use of green features.

The New Jersey Meadowlands Commission has set aside $700,000 to green its offices and provide incentives to developers who use green technologies in projects built in its jurisdiction.

An executive order signed by former Gov. James E. McGreevey in 2002 spurred a green schools movement by requiring that all new buildings constructed with grants from the Schools Construction Corp. conform to the Green Building Council's standards.

A partnership of 40 colleges has been shepherding green campus building projects. The New Jersey Institute of Technology has "greened" its roof and installed solar cells. Ramapo College is planning a Sustainable Center, which will feature a solar greenhouse and floor-to-ceiling windows on its southern exposure, a feature that will provide students with a pastoral view and warm the building in colder months.

The colleges are also being encouraged to teach sustainability concepts, said Donald Wheeler, a global studies professor at Kean University and executive director of the New Jersey Higher Education Partnership for Sustainability. "Colleges and universities in the country should be leading us to a more sustainable society," he said.

The subject has become such a hot educational topic that in 2004, NJIT began offering four green building courses, said Tony Schuman, graduate program director.

Three green building bills have been introduced in the Legislature. One would create a green building task force. A second would require all new state buildings to meet the Green Building Council standards. A third would require that existing buildings be examined to see if they could be retrofitted.

"You can add a few green features, or you can do a massive green project," said Keith Lesser, a Glen Rock architect. He is designing a new earth science building for Rutgers University that will be made with recycled roofing and siding, a rainwater-reuse landscaping system and energy and water efficient operations systems.

In some cases, greening a building means a return to the design strategies used before electricity, when buildings had to be situated just right on a plot of land to maximize sunlight and breezes.

In deciding to green the new women and children's hospital of Hackensack University Medical Center, planners couldn't make use of a common strategy of having windows that open - a safety violation in buildings with sedated patients.

Instead, the hospital is working to get its green rating by using as much recycled material as it can - including insulating the building with recycled, shredded blue jeans. Native shrubs on the building's many-tiered roofs will create a "meadow effect" that will keep air conditioning costs down and offer patients a "healing" view, said Suzen Heeley, the hospital's director of design and construction.

The greenest building in New Jersey is the Willow School, a private elementary school that achieved a "gold" rating from the Green Building Council. The school hopes to receive the highest rating - platinum - for a planned addition.

In addition to reusing the rainwater that falls on grounds landscaped with native plants, the school's designers built a wetlands to treat its sewage on site. The waste is flushed through the ground, which acts as a natural filter.

The treated water is clean enough to earn "recreational quality standards, meaning you could fill a pool with it," said Anthony Sblendorio, a landscape architect who oversaw the project.

"It's not any harder to build this way," Sblendorio said recently, as he gave a tour to Meadowlands officials looking for ideas on how to green the commission's Lyndhurst headquarters. "It's just a change in the way we think about building."

The Green Building Council assesses projects on features such as indoor air quality, water efficiency, the suitability of the site, and the extent to which recycled materials are used. A major focus is on reducing energy costs - and some interesting marriages have been made to achieve this goal.

The home being built in Paterson, for example, is a partnership between the building council and a chemical company, BASF Corp. The two-story stucco structure will run on two types of solar power. It will be insulated with plastic foam blocks, a product that's a close cousin to Styrofoam.

Used as insulation inside concrete walls, these Styropor blocks have won a good rating from scientists who measure a product's environmental safety. Because they don't break down over time, they will not crack and allow heat and air conditioning to leak out or allow rainwater or bugs to get in, said Jack Armstrong, a business manager for BASF.

The foam blocks also don't emit chemicals that foul air quality inside the home.

BASF Corp. sees a potential new market emerging for a product previously made into coffee cups and fast-food containers. "We know this is a safe product that won't emit chemicals in the home," Armstrong said. "We've drunk coffee out of it for years."

The Paterson house, when finished this winter, will be a demonstration home - one of hundreds around the country the building council is sponsoring to raise the public's awareness.

"Certainly if the public is out there clamoring for it, even the most cynical builder is going to build it," said Jim Hackler, director of the council's homes program.

But the council is hoping most of the tours of these homes will be taken by the folks who have the most power to make building practices more environmentally friendly - architects, engineers and contractors.

E-mail: diskin@northjersey.com

miss michael learned (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 6 January 2006 18:59 (nineteen years ago)

one year passes...

Walking bad, driving good!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece

StanM, Monday, 6 August 2007 09:03 (eighteen years ago)

IF EVERYONE HAVED TOILET SEAT STEERRING WHEEL. INSTEAD OF NORMAL STEERING WHEEL. THEY COULD BRING IT WITH THEM TO THERE TOILET WHEN GOTO THE BATHROOM. AND BRING IT WITH THEM TO CAR WHEN DRIVE THE CAR. THEN THEY NOT HAVED TO CHOPPOED DOWN AS MUCH TREES TO MAKED INTO STERRING WHEELS AND TOILET SEATS.

TIM@KFC.EDU, Monday, 6 August 2007 10:10 (eighteen years ago)

That article makes some valid points but the Times is so damn annoying in the way it presents these issues.

NickB, Monday, 6 August 2007 12:30 (eighteen years ago)

two years pass...

I don't know where else to put this so I'm putting it here:

Officials Fear Ship Breaking On Reef

http://i39.tinypic.com/a5kuht.jpg

A coal-carrying ship that strayed outside a shipping lane and ran aground in protected waters was leaking oil on Australia's Great Barrier Reef and was in danger of breaking apart, officials said Sunday.

The Chinese Shen Neng 1 ran aground late Saturday on Douglas Shoals, a favorite pristine haunt for recreational fishing east of the Great Keppel Island tourist resort. The shoals -- off the coast of Queensland state in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park -- are in a protected part of the reef where shipping is restricted by environmental law.

Ted. E. Bear, P.I. (Z S), Sunday, 4 April 2010 15:43 (fifteen years ago)

Slightly different account from LATimes

Ted. E. Bear, P.I. (Z S), Sunday, 4 April 2010 15:45 (fifteen years ago)

Sorry, I'm just going to cross-post here:

Sez here the Great Barrier Reef won't be around as such by mid-century

Just in case future generations of ILXors care to look up how we "accidentally" destroyed the Great Barrier Reef, it'll be much easier to search for there.

Ted. E. Bear, P.I. (Z S), Sunday, 4 April 2010 15:56 (fifteen years ago)

:| i'm sorry

ain't no thang but a chicken ㅋ (dyao), Sunday, 4 April 2010 15:57 (fifteen years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.