EBSCO Sustainability

In most senses, I could be described as someone who, for better or worse, thinks in black and white. While I can intellectually recognize the feasibility of “grey” in this life, when it comes down to it, my natural thoughts and emotions tends towards the rigid identification of a thing as “this” or as “that.” 

I have developed this myopic tendency, I believe, as a method of protecting myself from the discomfort associated with fear, pain, confusion, obscurity… We can essentially remove ourselves from a situation by taking a high-level rational approach to say, the death of Old Yeller: “Well, Mom, he had to die; he was dangerous…” said me, age 8.

In terms of my thoughts on sustainability and environmental protection, I tend to stay true to form – there is a “right way” and a “wrong way” and we should all be doing whatever we can to protect our futures and the future of our environment (which are really one and the same). However, I was recently reading an article about cod harvesting limits that stand to heavily impact the livelihoods of fishermen working in Northeastern cities like Gloucester and New Bedford Massachusetts. 

On the one hand, it makes sense. If we don’t reduce the numbers of cod being harvested, the fish populations will be depleted into oblivion. On the other hand, I have a very strong concern for these fishermen that happen to be my neighbors and happen to face a grim future without the ability to fish as necessary. We’re essentially deciding whether or not to “choose” the fish or “choose” the fishermen.

Enter a world of pain grey. I think that most people on the side of environmental sustainability would argue for the fishermen to adapt, for towns like Gloucester and New Bedford to somehow transform their economies. For us to prevent overfishing and potentially permanent damage to our marine ecosystem. But we know that this is no easy feat. That for fishermen who come from families of fishermen that have been fishing for decades, they can’t just pick up and start fresh. Not without training and support and…jobs to move to. That towns like Gloucester and New Bedford cannot just “come up” with the funds and resources and marketing to create a new economy. And that they certainly can’t expect to change overnight.

I think the bottom line in this case, and in all matters concerning sustainability (or everything!?) is that we cannot simply rest on black and white ideas of right and wrong to guide our decisions. The truth is that every decision has a tradeoff and every opinion a counter opinion. The only way to work together and solve large problems is to realize that there aren’t sides, only a series of ever-evolving challenges and decisions. And maybe, at the end, we can reconcile the head and the heart. Now, let’s hang our heads for poor Old Yeller.

As I’ve said before, or at least heavily alluded to, I truly feel that without wholesale change on the count of industry and government, there is little hope for stopping and eventually reversing climate change. We as individuals can recycle our hearts out, drive our Prii (is that what we decided to call them?), and use CFL bulbs, but until the organizations that rule our economies and our environments (government and industry) decide to change, we’re fighting a losing battle.

My friends and family have learned the hard way not to make completely disparaging comments about Walmart. The fact is, you’ll get an hour (plus) long spiel about how really, because of Walmart’s (occasionally evil) ambition and sheer size, they are able to make big waves in terms of environmental improvements. I don’t agree with many of their views on (disregard for?) human rights but man, they know how to store paper products in a way that makes transport and wood pallets way more efficient! And how about their sustainable fisheries…

So where am I going with this, you ask? Ceres just came out with a report all about how the insurance industry is poised to help usher in more acceptance for the realities of climate change – hopefully in a way that makes us safer and encourages us (the big U.S.) to make positive changes. Big ones. You see, just as in the case of Walmart, it is purely through self-interest that climate change-focused practices and policies would evolve within the insurance industry. But my, how we all would benefit. Here’s a particularly poignant excerpt from the report:

Insurers have historically been influential in motivating society to reduce risks, whether by advocating for smoke detectors in buildings or safety restraints in vehicles. Insurers have much to offer, and much at stake, in helping governments and private markets to further understand and develop solutions to better predict and prevent losses from extreme weather events. For instance, stronger resiliency to extreme weather is of great importance to the insurance sector as it reduces property risks, and promotes future insurability.

Ceres goes so far as to suggest that the insurance industry should work with scientists to capture the best and most up-to-date data on climate change. Refreshing when our politicians can’t even decide on whether or not climate change truly exists, no?

So, here I am extending my little hippie hand – Walmart and insurance companies, let’s be the unlikeliest of best friends. 

In a post from March, Sam Marquit wrote about the viability of using green construction techniques like radiant roof sheathing and tankless water heaters. In today’s post, Noelle Hirsch, an expert in green construction management, discusses ways that contractors and builders can incorporate eco-conscious design into their buildings, which appeal to consumers and environmentalists alike.

Efficient Construction Management, LEED Certification & the Water Crisis

It is becoming increasingly clear that the United States, along with the world as a whole, is facing a water crisis. Freshwater supplies are drying up, while industry and agriculture demand grow. The construction industry may seem an unlikely place to find a solution, but many of the most innovative conservation efforts start in homes, offices, and other everyday places where water is used indiscriminately. In many regions, people are catching on to the fact that implementing small changes in how buildings and infrastructures use water may have a profound effect on the global water shortage.

“In the next twenty years, global demand for fresh water will vastly outstrip reliable supply in many parts of the world,” The Atlantic reported in May 2012. “Thanks to population growth and agricultural intensification, humanity is drawing more heavily than ever on shared river basins and underground aquifers. Meanwhile, global warming is projected to exacerbate shortages in already water-stressed regions.” There are a number of ways to address this problem. In the short-term, though, simple changes to how individuals use—and waste—water on a daily basis may be the best solution. Construction management and architectural design is where these changes take root.

The United States Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) credentialing system is held by many to be something of a paradigm for water-efficient construction. The LEED system ranks buildings according to five levels—certified, bronze, silver, gold, and platinum—each of which corresponds to an ascending degree of sustainability. Construction managers who earn LEED certifications for their projects are often eligible for federal money, as well as industry accolades and positive press.

Water conservation is not the only factor going into LEED certification, though it does play an important role. Buildings that are designed to reduce water use by up to 20% can earn one point towards certification; achieving a 30% reduction typically earns two. Depending on the building, substantial reductions can often be achieved simply by installing water-saving faucets, showerheads, and other appliances.

Efficient use is usually only the starting line.  “Gray” water recycling and more efficient irrigation are also common water sustainability tactics. Most American buildings use drinking-quality water for things like flushing the toilets and watering the lawns. The gray water movement seeks to change this by implementing sophisticated water transfers. Water run-off from dishwashing, bathing, or laundry can be filtered and reused for certain purposes.

“An average four person household sends well over 38,000 gallons of reusable water down the drain each year from bathrooms and laundries,” Illinois State University says on its LEED Analysis homepage. “The intent of gray water is to save clean water for human consumption by fulfilling the need for water in residential and industrial areas.”

Maximizing rainwater is also a LEED strategy, particularly in damper climates. Architects design buildings with angles and gutters that will take advantage of natural rainfall and dew moisture. Melting snow can also be collected, often with little more than a collection mechanism and a properly-sloped roof.

Though building strategies and savvy architecture alone are unlikely to solve the looming water crisis, they can go a long way when it comes to holding it off. Construction managers who are serious about water sustainability often find that they wield more power than they realize. Building eco-conscious elements into homes, offices, and factories may be time consuming and expensive at the outset, but as customers and communities are becoming more concerned about the environment, green construction is gaining traction.