Many consider Americans to be polling as angry, but anger isn’t the emotion driving the national public agenda right now. It’s fear. Anger is just the fiercer face of fear and right now, Americans are afraid of nearly everything.

Who could blame them? A sour job market is keeping unemployment at 10 percent, the nation is still stuck in two wars, one of which is looking more perilous and unwinnable. The cost of a college education continues to go up, but it’s value seems diminished with so many out of work college grads. Americans have piled up a mountain of personal debt, from underwater mortgages to credit cards, to student loans. It seems we all owe corporations some massive amount cash. Those same corporations sell us over priced homes, take tax payer bailouts, reap huge profits our backs, dump oil into the Gulf of Mexico and for good measure invade our privacy regularly.

In a climate of circuitous bad news and reasons to be fearful, it’s not surprising that the common response is anger. The Tea Party movement has a seductive libertarian streak, but what the right is doing is capitalizing on the overwhelming anger and fear in the populous. Afraid you will lose your job – punish the undocumented worker, worried about the deficit – punish the unemployed , punish the environment, call healthcare reform socialism, call the President Adolf Hitler. Scream and yell “drill, baby, drill!” who cares if there isn’t enough oil to cover our needs no matter how deep we go? Fear trumps change.

Yet there are greater existential threats, ones that this congress will not take on. The cap and trade bill, as you have no doubt already heard, is stalled in the Senate. Democratic Party leadership has decided to set it aside to fight for another day. Essentially the leaders of the Democratic party decided that passing cap and trade isn’t worth the political fight in a midterm election year. The Democrats are already set to lose substantial seats in the House and Senate and could lose control of one or both chambers. And so the Democrats have decided it is better to try and stem the tide of losses they face in November (despite having control of the executive branch) than to use their vast majorities while they still exist. This is the great danger of our current political climate, we are too scared to take on the biggest if our problems. Our elected leaders are more concerned about keeping their jobs, than they are about doing them. Climate change is real and it’s happening every day, little by little and if we don’t stand and fight to stop it, if we don’t stand and fight to solve this energy crisis, our children and our grandchildren will pay a horrible price for our failure. The great recession will barely be a blip in history if we don’t work to solve the very real problems our planet is facing today.

But in the grip of this recession fear is all we know, it’s all we understand. We’re not thinking about what might happen to our grand kids, we’re hoping we can keep putting food on the table for our children. We’re not scared about what’s coming out of our tail pipe. We are scared that we’ll lose our house.

If our politicians, who do not face those same fears are still too afraid of losing their well subsidized jobs to take action against the greatest threat man kind has ever foreseen, then it’s time the fight for smarter climate policy move away from the political sphere and into the drawing rooms of America.

It’s time for the designers, artisans and builders of America to fight for sustainability in every project they undergo, whether that project needs to meet a LEED certification or not. The time for half measures and talk are over. We, the professionals of this nation are alone in this fight. We must assert our values in the work we do everyday, because no politician or political body will do it for us.

As the world braces for a tsunami, I’m working to understand this idea of “not being connected” as proposed by a CNN guest. CNN often has so-called ‘subject matter experts (SME)’ to support a given news segment. This morning they played host to a Georgia Tech Assistant Professor of Geology.  CNN’s SME made an academic case for all of the recent earthquakes in Haiti, Japan and now, Chile to be completely unrelated or connected. Really? His opinion got me to thinking about a larger issue affecting our country.

Last I’d checked, we were on one planet and to suggest that what happens on one side of the planet doesn’t affect the other is, in my opinion, elementary. You may as well say that it’s impossible for me to have  stomachache and headache at the same time. When I look at the overall sentiment of our country, I believe we are infected by a condition I call Issueitis – the separation of pressing issues for the benefit of ego. Case in point, yesterday’s political theater of a health care summit. The idea of having a summit on what should be afforded to everyone is beyond me but that’s another issue.

Our inability to see the interrelationship of our most pressing issues prevents us from identifying sustainable solutions thus resulting in endless debate, division and lack of progress. If you were to ask three different people what these recent earthquakes represented, you’d get three different answers. Here’s my take at their responses:

An Apocalyptic: “The Myan prophecies are being fulfilled.”

Religious leader: “God’s telling us something.”

A Geologist: “They’re unrelated.”

What school of thought you believe ultimately rest with what you identify with most. I propose we open our minds to truly understand the world is getting flatter with each passing day, embrace differences and promote solutions instead of division.

This Monday, December 7th – the world will have it’s eyes focused on the events happening in Copenhagen, Denmark. The hugely anticipated ‘Hopenhagen‘ meeting (otherwise known as the 15th United Nations Climate Change Conference) will bring together global leaders focused on making a unified effort to better the planet. Copenhagen is dubbed as “one of the greenest cities in the world” – further providing a great atmosphere for this importance meeting.

As you can imagine, a gathering of this magnitude put creative minds all around the world at work to bring about awareness. One of the best online catalogs of global campaigns is Osocio – led by the very talented Marc van Gurp.  The site recently featured some campaign ads focused on Hopenhagen and via his Twitter, Marc shared a link to some very interesting additional campaigns. Check some out below and here for the rest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-39b6Tex04

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SbyHuwARhE

From Science Daily | Reducing Greenhouse Gases May Not Be Enough To Slow Climate Change

Georgia Tech City and Regional Planning Professor Brian Stone is publishing a paper in the December edition of Environmental Science and Technology that suggests policymakers need to address the influence of global deforestation and urbanization on climate change, in addition to greenhouse gas emissions.

According to Stone’s paper, as the international community meets in Copenhagen in December to develop a new framework for responding to climate change, policymakers need to give serious consideration to broadening the range of management strategies beyond greenhouse gas reductions alone.

“Across the U.S. as a whole, approximately 50 percent of the warming that has occurred since 1950 is due to land use changes (usually in the form of clearing forest for crops or cities) rather than to the emission of greenhouse gases,” said Stone. “Most large U.S. cities, including Atlanta, are warming at more than twice the rate of the planet as a whole — a rate that is mostly attributable to land use change. As a result, emissions reduction programs — like the cap and trade program under consideration by the U.S. Congress — may not sufficiently slow climate change in large cities where most people live and where land use change is the dominant driver of warming.”

According to Stone’s research, slowing the rate of forest loss around the world, and regenerating forests where lost, could significantly slow the pace of global warming.

“Treaty negotiators should formally recognize land use change as a key driver of warming,” said Stone. “The role of land use in global warming is the most important climate-related story that has not been widely covered in the media.”

Stone recommends slowing what he terms the “green loss effect” through the planting of millions of trees in urbanized areas and through the protection and regeneration of global forests outside of urbanized regions. Forested areas provide the combined benefits of directly cooling the atmosphere and of absorbing greenhouse gases, leading to additional cooling. Green architecture in cities, including green roofs and more highly reflective construction materials, would further contribute to a slowing of warming rates. Stone envisions local and state governments taking the lead in addressing the land use drivers of climate change, while the federal government takes the lead in implementing carbon reduction initiatives, like cap and trade programs.

“As we look to address the climate change issue from a land use perspective, there is a huge opportunity for local and state governments,” said Stone. “Presently, local government capacity is largely unharnessed in climate management structures under consideration by the U.S. Congress. Yet local governments possess extensive powers to manage the land use activities in both the urban and rural areas.”

Full | Reducing Greenhouse Gases May Not Be Enough To Slow Climate Change

by James Bedell

Photo, Flickr

As one of the founders and leaders of Build2Sustain I am constantly trying to advocate for the business case for green building renovation. I do this for two reasons, the first, because I believe in it. Efficiency is at the heart of good capitalism and we need our built spaces to be more efficient to compete. I also make the argument because, frankly, I think it’s the one people outside of the “green” movement will listen to. It’s hard sometimes to make the argument about stopping climate change; it’s easier to defend someone’s wallet. But I want to make something clear, there is a moral imperative for every building to be a green building. Here’s the bottom line: there are a limited number of resources on this planet and as the population grows we know that we’ll need to be smarter about how we use those resources.

It’s so easy to look at SUVs and make them the target of our environmental ire. It also gives people a simple point of attack. Celebrities drop their Hummers and get Teslas and all the sudden everything is right with the world. I wonder if their home is as efficient as their car? The buildings we live and work in are responsible for half of the green house gas emissions in the world. They are also responsible for roughly the same percentage of our energy usage. We focus intently on transportation because we feel like we can engineer our way to a solution and maybe we can, but our houses, our offices, and our malls are just as much to blame and represent a lot more work.

Our buildings can be healthier places that disturb the natural environment less and actually contribute energy to the grid instead of only pull from it. We can actually remake our building stock into a net positive for the planet if we have the will. Where do we find that will? Imagine a tomorrow where our kids don’t pay electric bills. Where our water supply is constantly recycled. Where our cars are powered by electricity pulled from our homes. A world where we don’t have to worry about air quality because of burning coal to power our offices. Imagine built spaces that make us healthier. That’s the future we can provide for our children, if we only work for it. Don’t we owe that to them?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPIo7lteCZk

I don’t think I could have chosen a better time to relaunch Aribra.com. The response has been incredible and we’re just getting started. Today is Blog Action Day, the largest social change event on the web  and Aribra.com is apart of the effort. Our mission is to bring awareness to the importance of a collective conversation regarding issues related to the built environment to include climate change. Whether you think the issue is real or important, at this point, is a non-issue; it’s here.

The Copenhagen Climate Summit is just 52 days away and the US has yet to agree on a comprehensive climate bill. Have we not learned our lesson? We can lead the world in consumption but when it comes to making tough decisions, it’s questionable. I’ve traveled the world and have witnessed the devastation climate change is causing in less wealthier countries. I find it encouraging to know that we have the opportunity to shift gears.

My Challenge

Talk to your friends, family and colleagues about climate change, educate yourself on the issues and learn how you can get involved. Find an organization to support who advances sustainability and have taken a stand to fight climate change. CARE is one I’ve found to be a strong voice in the effort. I don’t profess to be a climate change expert or even an environmentalist but a global citizen who believes we can do better. Contact your representatives and tell them it’s time. We cannot afford to accept complacency as a position any longer. It’s our time to get this right for future generations. We hope to be apart of the generation that stood up and said no more!

Resources:

• Facts and Figures
• Climate Change 101
• MNN’s 15 Best Carbon Calculators
• The Top 100 Effects of Climate Change

I woke up on the morning of October 5th, poured a cup of coffee, and opened the paper.  Unusual for me, but I had just arrived in my home state of South Carolina the previous evening from New York.  As I enjoyed that tactile experience of holding the printed news in my hand, my eyes scanned the pages for topics that usually interest me: art, design, architecture, planning, politics, and the environment. “What’s doing here down south?” I thought.

I came across this article, Carolinas water dispute goes to court. In summary, South Carolina has brought a case before the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that South Carolina’s water supply risks being significantly diminished through unchecked divertment plans proposed by South Carolina’s neighbor to the north. The water source at issue in this case is the Catawba River, which starts in western McDowell County, NC and is a tributary to the Wateree River in central South Carolina. The Attorney General for South Carolina, Henry McMaster, believes that if North Carolina’s plans are successful, it would establish a precedent that would give other states, namely Georgia, reason to divert significant amounts of water that would adversely impact South Carolina’s water supplies.

Map of Santee River watershed showing Catawba River and tributaries.

There is a doctrine of equitable apportionment in the U.S. Constitution that basically protects states’ rights to natural resources that cross our otherwise arbitrary political boundaries.  This battle between North Carolina and South Carolina – yes, they are two separate sovereign states – isn’t the first squabble over interstate resources and how the equitable apportionment doctrine should be applied. Wyoming v. Colorado (1922), New Jersey v. New York (1931), Arizona v. California (1931), Colorado v. Kansas (1943), Idaho v. Oregon (1983), and Texas v. New Mexico (1983) stand as cases that reveal a long history in the distribution of natural resources among political entities. Although the severe draught in the southeastern United States was declared over as early as April of this year by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, there’s no doubt that should climate change scenarios become realities, the equitable apportionment doctrine will be revisited as resources are impacted.

What are the regional planning and administrative implications involving access and distribution of interstate resources? Would redrawing our political boundaries along geological, hydrological, and ecological boundaries be result in a better organizing system? Perhaps, but the more likely action is to overlay resource jurisdictions that  span our existing political boundaries. Throw in the interests of private corporations, such as Duke Energy in the debate between North Carolina and South Carolina, and you get what McMaster calls a “complex question that will be based on a comprehensive analysis of the past, present and future needs of the state of North Carolina and the state of South Carolina…”

Water has been a largely undervalued resource for most of us living in the United States today.  The question of access and distribution of this resource will become only more complicated as the Catawba River debate suggests.  Bear in mind that water is essential in so many aspects of our lifes; energy production, recreation, economic development, mining, agricultural irrigation, drink water, tourism,  historical and cultural significance, the list goes on, and yet we have yet to place a value on this particular resource that accurately reflects the extent to which it impacts our lives.

The article reminded me to pick up Robert Glennon’s new book “Unquenchable.” The publisher, Island Press, says this:

The looming catastrophe remains hidden as government diverts supplies from one area to another to keep water flowing from the tap. But sooner rather than later, the shell game has to end. And when it does, shortages will threaten not only the environment, but every aspect of American life: we face shuttered power plants and jobless workers, decimated fi sheries and contaminated drinking water.

I’d like to launch into more philosophical ground on how our propensity to carve up the world into neat little bounded areas runs counter to the way natural systems work and how this inevitably gets us, and the rest of our world, into trouble.  Perhaps another post. In any event, this issue of access to resources, particularly water,  is something that is both big and small and it doesn’t end at the tap.

]]> http://aribra.com/dividing-water-and-other-calamities-between-arbitrary-boundaries/feed 0 http://aribra.com/sustainability-what-does-it-really-mean http://aribra.com/sustainability-what-does-it-really-mean#comments Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:24:53 +0000 Yahya E. B. Henry http://aribra.com/?p=457

If you were to ask three different people the definition of sustainability, you’ll receive three different answers; this is ours.  Business structures are moving away from models based solely on economic returns and are now considering the environmental and social returns as well. The tides are shifting.

From Mother Nature Network | Sustainability: What does it really mean?

We are perhaps transitioning from a communications age to one of sustainability.

It is the buzzword of today, used in reference to the environment, economy, development, health care, food and more. During his address last month to Congress on health care, President Barack Obama said, “our health care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers.” He is working to restructure our economy around sustainability and “green” jobs rather than manufacturing and finance as in the past.

The Dow Jones Sustainability Index now tracks the financial performance of leading sustainably driven companies worldwide. We see the ideal in the construction of our homes and businesses. Colleges and universities now are creating environmentally sustainable campuses and adding courses that reflect students’ new belief that their futures will be driven by the ideal, says Dr. Shana Weber, sustainability manager in the Office of Sustainability at Princeton University. At Princeton alone, 51 courses now address sustainability in some way, in subjects such as the economy and energy.

We use the word so much, but do we really understand what it means? Is the word so overused it is in danger of losing its meaning?

Sustainability refers to everything

The word carries a “green” connotation, but really everything is connected, says Nancy Gabriel, director of the Donella Meadows Leadership Fellows Program at the Sustainability Institute in Hartland, Vt. A world in which the environment is pristine but poverty is rampant is not sustainable. She believes the definition includes three components: the environment, economy and social justice.

“It is truly an all-encompassing word,” Weber says. “We have to look at business structures. We have to look at social structures. We have to look at almost every aspect of how we live. And so that seems overwhelming, but that’s really what it’s about. What can we do to stabilize our global environment, social and economic systems?”

The word’s modern meaning dates to 1987. That year the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (also called the Brundtland commission after its chair, the Norwegian diplomat Gro Harlem Brundtland) issued a report defining sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

In time, a movement began revolving around a word that didn’t carry the negative connotations of environmentalism, Weber says. The LEED green building rating system emerged, making environmentalism more mainstream, and then Al Gore released his film, An Inconvenient Truth. The film was released at “exactly the right moment,” she says. “It was already in the air, and that film really seemed to galvanize something.”

At risk of losing its meaning

Today advertisers and marketers use sustainability to describe nearly everything. Perhaps the word is in danger of losing its meaning. But we also have been shocked by economic collapse and natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina and the tsunami that devastated South Asia. We have watched water levels rise and glaciers melt. We understand change is necessary. Gabriel wonders whether, in fact, a sustainability age already has passed, whether instead we are entering an age of restoration or regeneration.

“People are feeling that I think our lifestyle of consuming goods, the way our lifestyle is, it has disconnected us from each other,” she says. “People are feeling that and feeling and really looking, wanting something different. And so this, all these kinds of collapses are opportunities really to restructure in different in ways.”

In a country where more is the American way, is sustainability feasible?

Embedded in our identity is a deeply held ambition to push away at boundaries. Early Americans pushed across the Atlantic and declared our independence. Then we pushed across the continent toward the West, crossing the Mississippi River and scaling the Rocky Mountains. We invented cars and planes and reached for the moon. Over time even our houses and food portions grew in size. “Where’s the beef?” we said.

That is why what has happened to our economy is so shocking and painful. The contraction we have experienced is un-American. The discouragement and humility we feel are foreign. Sustainability advocates insist they do not mean for us to lower our standard of living, but rather they want us to understand that less of many things taken together actually can lead to a better life.

Sustainability is a concept we are drawn to because it offers hope, Weber says. It makes us believe we can have both less and more at the same time, that our problems are surmountable, and the solutions lie within us.

“I think we have to shift away from this industrial growth model,” Gabriel says. “I really think there is a way to look at how to do development that’s more focused on well-being and not on this consuming of goods.”

Full | Sustainability: What does it really mean?

Photo credit: NASA, Johnson Space Center

by Liz Neves

In the big city, on any given day, anything seems possible. Millions of thinkers, dreamers, and doers exchange ideas, creative sparks, and currency. There are plenty of reasons to be a city dweller – more jobs, much inspiration, more opportunities to help people who need it. But there’s one big drawback to city dwelling, especially New York City dwelling: dismally poor air quality.

Some might argue we just can’t help it. In a city of millions where almost all of our goods are trucked in and 12,000 tons of residential trash is trucked out every day, how could we fight the beast of diesel exhaust? When coal-burning power plants in the MidWest are emitting mercury and other harmful pollutants that drift our way with the air currents, what are we supposed to do to stop that?

The health implications of poor air quality from diesel exhaust and coal burning are numerous. Increased asthma rates, increased rates of cancer, even endocrine disruption and reproductive disorders result from the multitude of particulates we inhale.

But there are measures we can take, as a community, as individuals to improve our outdoor air quality (stay tuned for ways to improve indoor air quality in a future post). Here are a few:

Plant and care for trees

Trees are amazing filters of air pollution. They take in carbon dioxide and absorb harmful particulates through their leaves. Certain cultivars are particularly good at filtering air pollution and tolerating the harsh environment of the city, including the London Plane, Silver Leaf Linden, and Gingko Biloba. Through the Bloomberg administration’s PlaNYC there is an effort to plant 1 million trees citywide, concentrating on neighborhoods who need it most, such as those with high asthma rates and few standing trees.

Unfortunately, young street trees have a high mortality rate; half of them don’t make it within the first couple of years. But there are groups whose sole purpose is to care for street trees, including Trees NY and the New York Restoration Project. The Brooklyn Botanic Garden’s GreenBridge Program provides free courses on tree care as well.

Improve the efficiency of your home or office

Consuming less energy means fewer resources will be burned, fewer pollutants will be released. Considering about 50% of this country’s energy comes from coal, it could make a big impact if we all changed a few of our home practices.

Simply installing and using a programmable thermostat can save money and energy use. Setting the thermostat to around 68 degrees F in winter (78 degrees F in summer) when you’re home and awake and lowering it (in winter) when your not home or asleep can help you save significantly on your home energy bill.

Sealing drafty windows and doors with inexpensive and simple devices like caulking and door draft guards can make a big difference. Black & Decker recently launched some new devices for home use, like the auto-off energy switch and thermal heat sensor to help you determine where you could use some extra insulation.

Setting your hot water heater to a lower setting can help you save, too. According to the US Department of Energy, “for each 10ºF reduction in water temperature, you can save between 3%–5% in energy costs.” Simply using cold water for laundry, washing your hands, and doing dishes can also help save some energy (and money).

You might be rewarded for your efforts to make your home run more efficiently. Check to see if you’re eligible for Federal Tax Credits through Energy Star.

Get more tips on improving your home’s efficiency from ReCharge America.

Support alternative sources of energy

New York City residents have the option to switch to alternative sources of energy, such as wind power, through Con Ed Solutions. To find out if you have a choice of energy source in your part of the country, check out Community Energy.

Walk, ride your bike, take mass transit

Who needs a gym? Walking and bicycling are both great ways to get where you’re going while burning calories, not air-polluting fuel. Find out how walkable your city is with Walk Score.

Utilizing mass transit, like trains or buses, reduces emissions, saves wear and tear on your car (if you’ve got one), and decreases fuel consumption.

Reduce overall consumption

If you haven’t yet seen the Story of Stuff, it’s an eye-opening short film detailing the history of our consumer culture. It’s sure to get you thinking about how much you buy and whether those purchases are really necessary.

It’s easy to buy less when you know a few basic skills like sewing on buttons or repairing broken appliances instead of tossing out the old and buy new. Groups like Brooklyn Skillshare are ensuring that communities maintain skills like bicycle repair, sewing, and food preparation so that we can be a bit more self-sufficient and reduce consumption of new things by utilizing the resources we have handy.

By reducing overall purchase of new products, we can dramatically reduce the amount of fuel (and other non-renewable resources) burned as well as cutting back on the trash we produce. And having less clutter can actually help you breathe a little easier as well.

Buy local

When goods don’t have far to travel, generally less fuel is spent in the process of getting them to your household. By supporting local businesses who make goods locally, you’ll not only reduce the burning of fuel, you’ll be boosting the local economy. Organizations like Buy in Brooklyn encourage community members to support their local business owners. Local Harvest will help you find what’s fresh and in season in your area.

Compost

Half of all the household trash created in NYC is compostable. That would mean instead of 600 tractor trailers hauling out our trash daily, there would potentially be 300, reducing the amount of diesel fuel burned by half. Composting also keeps food waste out of landfills where they would release methane gas, a greenhouse gas that’s 25 times more potent than carbon. Not to mention that food waste can be turned into a fruitful commodity, a valuable medium for growing nutritious food.

Get involved

It’s encouraging to see how many health and sustainability groups have formed or have been strengthened in recent years. Here are just a few organizations you can support or join who have air quality or related initiatives:

• Livable Streets Initiative
• Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
• Sierra Club Safeguarding Communities Initiative
• Environment America
• American Lung Association Clean Air Initiative

These are just a few ways we can improve the air we breathe. Do you know someone (organization, community group, individual) who is taking steps to improve air quality? How are you helping to improve air quality where you live?

The Company

Aries + Libra = Aribra (uh ree bra)

Aribra represents a convergence on public health, climate change, sustainability and real estate. We believe these issues should be apart of a collective conversation versus  separate ones.

The Logo

The Aribra logo is our interpretation of the Sustainability Diagram. We modeled the colors represented; orange/gold (economic), blue (social) and green (environment) respectively. There are several interpretations of this diagram. For instance some use red to represent the economic component; the decision was made to use this one as the model.

The Tagline

Our tagline encompasses our mission and development strategy. Aribra truly has adopted the position that any development that does not include the principles of sustainability and capture the essence of a community, does not make sense. In that regard, Aribra’s holistic approach to developing takes all of these factors in consideration as well as those relevant to the communities we serve.

The Mission

To be an industry enhancer through the equitable development of communities that are triple bottom line; economically, environmentally and socially sustainable.

The End