Trim Tab v.3 - Fall 2009 by Michael Berrisford

CASCADIAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S MAGAZINE FOR TRANSFORMATIVE PEOPLE + DESIGN

03 QUARTER 2009

TRANSFORMATIONAL THOUGHT:

Waste and Alternative Waste Treatment TRANSFORMATIONAL DESIGN:

living buildings: OMega Center for sustainable living and tyson living learning Center TRANSFORMATIONAL PEOPLE:

david korten A story teller for a new economy ALSO:

zero energy buildings: all the pieces of the puzzle

trim tab

issu e 003 cascadi agb c .org

Ed i to r i n Chi ef

Execu ti ve E d i tor

Jason F. McLennan Jason@cascadiagbc.org David R. Macaulay dmacaulay@kc.rr.com

M an ag i ng E d i tor

Jenny Seifert jenny@cascadiagcb.org

P r o d ucti on Chi ef Bob

Potter bob@cascadiagbc.org

C r e ati v e Di rector

Erin Gehle ering@softfirmstudios.net

A dv e r t i si ng Sarah

Costello sarah@cascadiagbc.org

C o n t r i bu tors

Jennifer Brown, David Cohan, Daniel Hellmuth, Thor Peterson, Bill Walsh, Paul Werder

TRANSFORMATIONAL DESIGN:

Departments 05 TRANSFORMATIONAL DESIGN:

The race to the finish: The worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s first two Living Building contenders enter the homestretch By th e Trim Tab Editorial Team

For editorial inquiries or freelance submissions, contact Jenny Seifert at jenny@cascadiagbc.org For photography submissions, contact Bob Potter at bob@cascadiagbc.org For advertising, contact Sarah Costello at sarah@cascadiagbc.org

Who will it be: the Omega Sustainable Living Center or the Tyson Living Learning Center?

Trim Tab is a quarterly publication of the Cascadia Region Green Building Council, a nonprofit, taxexempt organization. Office locations: 721 NW 9th Ave Suite 280, Portland, OR 97209; 410 Occidental Ave South, Seattle, WA 98105; 1100-111 Dunsmuir Street, Vancouver, BC V6B 6A3. All rights reserved. Content may not be reproduced in whole or in part without written permission and is for informational purposes only.

Fall 2009

David Korten: A story teller for a new economy by Jenny S eifert

Back issues or reprints: Contact info@cascadiagbc.org

s u mme r 2 0 0 9 , Issu e 3

TRANSFORMATIONAL PEOPLE:

A conversation with a visionary who is trying to rewrite the American economic story

TRANSFORMATIONAL THOUGHT:

Flushing Outdated Thinking: Transforming our Relationship with Water and Waste by jason F. mclennan

Why are we afraid of our own waste? How transforming our fears and practices will lead to cleaner, healthier communities

contents THIRD Quarter 2 0 0 9

TRANSFORMATIONAL PEOPLE:

Features 10

Zero-Energy Buildings: All the Pieces of the Puzzle B y Dav i d Cohan

An energy efficiency expert maps out the road to zero energy

COLUMN:

It Bears Repeating: PVC Elimination May Be the Most Significant Contribution You Can Make to Homeland Security

TRANSFORMATIONAL THOUGHT:

39 39

Moving Upstream:

Book Review:

Being a Change Agent: How to Take a Stand from your Heart B y Paul Werder

Discovering the highest road for a change agent to take

Moving Upstream

Nuts & Bolts

b y B I ll walsh

Progress in the Bioregion

The Upside of Down: Catastrophe, Creativity, and the Renewal of Civilization By Thomas Homer -Dixon Revie w by Thor Peterson

Event Calendar

Challenging the Regulatory Environment: New Cascadia Report Examines Intersection of Living Buildings + Building Codes B y the Trim Ta b E ditorial T eam

trim tab

Fall 2009

story by the trim tab editorial team

1 2 3 4

The Race to the Finish

This past May, the first two projects pursuing the Living Building Challenge completed construction. The Omega Center for Sustainable Living and the Tyson Living Learning Center are now in the homestretch—the critical twelve-months of operation, after which they must prove that they are really achieving the high standards put forth by the Challenge. All eyes are now on them: who will become the first to claim Living Building status?

World’s first two Living Building contenders enter the homestretch

trim tab

Through it all, the Challenge has certainly changed both teams’ perspectives on the building process and on their building’s relationship with both its occupants and natural environment. The teams explain their shift in thinking on the following pages.

The Omega Center for Sustainable Living: How the Living Building Challenge Changed this Values-Based Project The Omega Center for Sustainable Living (OCSL) is the result of five years of thought and effort. Thanks to the Living Building Challenge, the end result far exceeded Omega’s original expectations for the project. The Omega Institute for Holistic Studies is a nonprofit organization offering innovative educational experiences that inspire people to live sustainably in all areas of life. Omega hosts its programs on a 195-acre campus in Rhinebeck, New York. In 2004, it became obvious that the aging septic system could no longer support the 16,000 people coming to the campus each year. Robert “Skip” Backus, then the Director of Operations at Omega, began to weigh options for upgrading or replacing the system. In line with Omega’s core values, he asked the question, “How can we do this in the most sustainable way possible?” Drawing on one of Omega’s greatest resources—the faculty who teach there—Backus posed his question to John Todd, creator of the living machine technology. John Todd had answers. It was soon apparent that an Eco

Fall 2009

Machine™, which uses natural processes to reclaim water, was the right answer for Omega. A closed system designed to clean Omega’s water without the use of chemicals, the Eco Machine fit Omega’s requirements for a truly sustainable solution. Backus realized that building the Eco Machine could be done mindfully and sustainably, or it could be built conventionally. Again he asked, “How can we do this in the most sustainable way possible?” John Todd connected Backus with BNIM architects and, within a short time, Omega had signed on to the Living Building Challenge. BNIM architects also helped Omega decide how best to communicate this unique project to its visitors and the general public. It was clearly more than just a water treatment facility; it was an opportunity for a unique educational experience. Thus Omega arrived at the idea for the Omega Center for Sustainable Living (OCSL), a state-of-the-art education center and natural water reclamation facility. Owner of his own construction company for several decades, and now CEO of Omega, Backus is no stranger to challenges, but the Living Building Challenge (LBC) was a new experience for him. “There was a huge learning curve with the LBC. We chose to focus on the smallest details, all the way down to having the contractors compost the uneaten parts of their lunch.” One of the biggest challenges was the acquisition of truly

sustainable materials—especially from within a certain mile radius of the building. “I think it’s critically important to understand where our materials come from and the processes that create them. It seems we have a distance to go to make our industry truly sustainable,” Backus said. Because of the depth of sustainability inherent in the LBC, and because Omega is one of the first organizations to participate in the program, the project took longer than expected. “There is no check box on the forms for a building like the OCSL. It took many meetings, explanations, drawings, studies, and earnest conversations to get through the development and permitting process, and to explain to everyone along the way, from vendors to government agencies, exactly what the Living Building Challenge is and why it is worth it.” All these factors, plus the soaring prices of building materials like steel and glass, nearly doubled the cost of the project. Originally estimated at 2.2 million, the building is likely to total 3.9 million. Overall, Backus says, “I have emerged from the experience with a new appreciation for integrated design. We have the opportunity to really change how we live and interact with nature and each other, and you get that in a visceral way when you are in a living building.” The OCSL has been operational since May 2009. During its grand opening celebration in July, John Todd described the OCSL as “a world in miniature. It is rewriting the rules for sustainability. By working to meet the Living Building Challenge, the OCSL pushed the design envelope to allow this building to live in the sacred ecology that connects each of us to one another.” For details, visit eOmega.org/OCSL.

trim tab

“I have emerged from the experience with a new appreciation for integrated design. We have the opportunity to really change how we live and interact with nature and each other, and you get that in a visceral way when you are in a living building.” OCSL: Just the facts Location:

Rhinebeck, NY

Completed:

May 2009

Architect: BNIM Architects Client/Owner: Omega Institute for Holistic Studies Contractor:

Dave Sember Construction

Consultants:

John Todd Ecological Design (ecological design), Natural Systems International (Eco Machine), Conservation Design Forum (landscape architect), Tipping Mar + associates (structural engineer), BGR Engineers (MEP engineer), The Chazen Companies(civil engineer)

The Tyson Living Learning Center: An Educational Tool for Building Biological Systems The Tyson Living Learning Center provides educational space for high school and undergraduate students on topics of sustainable ecosystems thanks to a grant from the National Science Foundation and collaborative efforts between Washington University (WU) Science Outreach, WU’s Tyson Research Center and the Missouri Botanical Garden’s Shaw Nature Preserve. The team recognized the unique opportunity offered by the project from the very first meeting at the 2,000 acre field station. “During our presentation of prospective environmental goals at the design charrette, we broached the possibility of pursuing the Living Building Challenge, which not only captured the goals we had been discussing, but also reinforced WU’s educational mission,” said Daniel Hellmuth, Principal of Hellmuth-Bicknese Architects, the project architect. According to Hellmuth, the Challenge made sense due to the project’s location, the philosophy and background of the staff, the educational goals of

Fall 2009

the center, and the overarching sustainability goals of Washington University. The project proved to transform the team’s whole perspective. “Perhaps the biggest paradigm shift in our thinking was conceptualizing the site and building as an interactive set of biological systems and offsets designed to mitigate their combined effect on the environment,” said Hellmuth. Features that exemplify this include the project’s compost toilets and its greywater and potable water systems—both biological conversion systems on some level. The use of the compost process—itself a biological nutrient cycle— enabled the team to throw out the concept of “waste” in the building. The potable rainwater system uses the hydrological cycle with energy input from the PV system to circulate and filter the water, treating it without chemicals. The conservation stormwater management—a combination of rain gardens, dry creek beds and pervious pavement— supplements the hydrological cycle of infiltration and absorption for rainwater that is not consumed or changed into greywater; thus, the groundwater is fully recharged either directly or indirectly. Another factor that changed the team’s perspective was the troika created by the materials Red List, an appropriate

tyson: Just the facts Location:

Eureka, MO, within Tyson Research

Center

Completed:

May 2009

Architect:

Hellmuth & Bicknese Architects

Client/Owner : Washington University Contractor: Bingham Construction Co. Consultants:

Lewisites (landscape architect), ASDG LLC (structural engineer), Solutions AEC (MEP engineer), Williams Creek (civil engineering and stormwater management design)

material radius and responsible industry criteria, which became a force for regionalism that, combined with climatic responsive design, begins to create a regional style. “Like buying food at the farmers’ market, where you can meet the farmers that grow your food locally, designing a LBC building allowed us to get up close with local suppliers and manufactures and certainly coerced knowledge of where and how the products were produced,” explained Hellmuth. This knowledge-gathering even extended to a walk through the Tyson forest to mark eastern red cedar and hard maple trees scheduled for removal as part of a natural forest restoration management project. Other manifestations of creative material search and use ensued. Facilitating artist expression in flooring materials using dead-fall resulted in an ash floor with walnut inlay, hickory flooring in offices, and hard maple in the largest spaces. The team also had the unique opportunity to work directly with a local artist on a rainchain design—typically, rainchains come from India. Furthermore, led by Neal Schaeffer, who managed the project for WU facilities, the team searched for salvaged materials in demolition yards and even in the City Museum to look for used locks, doors, toilet accessories and light fixtures. “This interactive, creative way of working has largely been lost in the architectural profession and it is likely we will

pursue even more on future projects,” said Hellmuth. The other change in thinking has come from the team’s continuing relationship with its users and occupants through the building’s expanding pedagogical usability. They have worked with architecture students and professors on a program educating high school and middle school children on green design and buildings. They were also able to interface with the Missouri Botanical Garden Ecocamp students on a tour of the building, as well as work with graduate level environmental science students on interpretation of the building systems. The team continues to evolve their curriculum and is still occasionally called on by high schools and the university to explain the function of a particular building or site system. There is also the opportunity to add components to the building over time that will increase its overall performance and pedagogical function—a feature included in the LBC documentation. Hellmuth concludes, “In reflection, our change in thinking has developed from our ongoing interrelationship with the building and users, as well as the realization that a building can be a series of interactive biological cycles that, when combined, mitigate the affect of its construction and begin to explore the boundaries of true sustainability and regional design.”

Trim Tab thanks J e nnife r Brown of the Omega Institute for Holistic Studies and Daniel He llmuth of Hellmuth & Bicknese Architects for contributing greatly to this article.

trim tab

Zero-Energy Buildings: All the Pieces of the Puzzle By Dav i d C oha n

If you want to stop global warming, you have to reduce energy use. If you want to reduce energy use, you have to address buildings in a big way. As most green building practitioners know, buildings contribute almost half of the US’ fossil fuel-related greenhouse gas emissions. One of the most widely discussed goals of the green building movement has therefore become the creation of zeroenergy homes and buildings, referred to as ZEBs . ZEBs represent a gigantic step forward from virtually all current buildings, and several initiatives are working to address technical and cost issues and to raise awareness and support for them. Cascadia’s Living Building Challenge is one—it requires that, “One hundred percent of the building’s energy needs [to be] supplied by on-site renewable energy on a net annual basis.” Last year ZEBs became official policy in California, when the California Energy Commission adopted recommendations that all new homes be zero energy by 2020 and all new commercial buildings by 2030. ZEBs are also part of the 2030 Challenge, by far the most influential non-governmental, building policy initiative in the country . The rapid rise of interest in ZEBs on both the policy and the individual level is inspiring, but it’s critical to realize that ZEBs result from the interplay of many complex and dynamic elements. Design and construction are only two pieces of the puzzle, and without all the other pieces zero energy can’t be achieved. The following is a description of all the elements needed to achieve a ZEB with an explanation of how each impacts a building’s energy use. Without completely addressing each one, no building will become a zero-energy building. A good design creates the potential (but only the potential) to create a ZEB; a bad design makes it impossible. To create a ZEB, the design must take into account the climate, site conditions, intended use of the building, construction materials and energy-

1.Design.

Fall 2009

consuming equipment. These must be combined in such a way that the minimum amount of energy is required to meet the needs of the occupants and keep them comfortable. 2 .Construction . No matter how good the design, nothing will come of it if the builders don’t follow it closely throughout construction. Buildings are never built exactly according to design, because portions of the design itself are flawed, the specified materials or equipment aren’t available, less expensive substitutes exist, or the builder simply thinks s/he knows a better or easier way to do it. While a modification to the design during construction doesn’t always result in higher energy use, increased energy use will be the likely outcome, unless the builder has a complete understanding of the intent of the design, as well as its technical aspects.

A second critical area of construction is craftsmanship. Even if the design is followed perfectly, the building will be an energy hog if the quality of construction is poor. For example, windows can be installed so that they are practically airtight or so that they leak like sieves. If the latter is the case, the building will clearly never become a ZEB. 3 .Commissioning . Commissioning is a quality control process, which ensures that all equipment and systems are installed correctly and working as intended. There is a huge body of research showing that new buildings rarely function as designed, especially larger commercial buildings, which typically have hundreds or thousands of remotely controlled fans, valves, controls and sensors. Still, only a small fraction of all new buildings have a meaningful level of commissioning performed. 4.Operations/Occupant Behavior. The performance of a building is most dependent on how it is used by the occupants and the people who control the energy systems. The most efficient heating system in the world will use tons of energy if the thermostat is set to 85º in the winter. Doors and windows left open will render the best insulation irrelevant. A teenager taking 30-minute showers will defeat every attempt at reducing energy for hot water. Energy use can also change drastically when new occupants move in, a new building manager is hired, or there are changes in the number of occupants—as companies expand or contract in a commercial building or, in homes, as children are born or go off to college (or move back in!). 5 .M aintenance .

The performance of all equipment

degrades over time if it is not maintained. A building that starts as a ZEB won’t continue as such without proper maintenance. From mundane measures, such as changing furnace filters, to infrequent but critical replacement of major parts, all forms of maintenance impact efficiency. Poor maintenance can increase energy use by 10 percent or more, yet deferred maintenance (i.e. not doing it) is more often the rule than the exception. Organizations and individuals eventually pay the price through increased energy bills, shorter equipment life and emergency repairs, but the overwhelming evidence suggests that these do not provide sufficient motivation to change behavior. The design of a new building typically includes a heating and cooling system, built-in lighting, a water heater and possibly some major appliances or specialty equipment, such as the refrigeration system in a grocery store. What’s not included is all the equipment that people bring with them when they move in. These so-called “plug loads” include all computers, copiers, printers, desk lights, space heaters, hot tubs, pottery kilns, washers and dryers, and the now ubiquitous large flat screen TVs. All of these appliances and countless others can easily constitute 25 percent—and up to 50 percent or more, especially in hospitals and laboratories—of a building’s total energy consumption.

6.Plug Loads.

7.R enewa b le E nergy Sy stems. A ZEB has to produce as much energy as it uses, but it is obvious from the preceding items that the amount of energy used from year to year can vary widely. Depending on the size of the installed renewable systems, a building could be zero energy one year and far from it the next. The installed systems can be supplemented with renewable energy generated off-site (e.g. a wind farm) if it is available, but in general, it is problematic to closely match energy consumption to renewable production over time. (The acceptable ratio of on-site to off-site renewable energy is a much discussed philosophical issue among ZEB enthusiasts.)

The clear lesson from all of the above is that reducing building-related emissions enough to substantially mitigate global warming will require a diverse set of practices and public policies that cover every item in the list. Addressing only a few of them may help, but in no way will it be adequate to meet the existing laws around the country that require reductions in greenhouse gas emissions of up to 80 percent. Achieving such reductions will require a mix of approaches—regulation, incentives, education, information—that together inspire or coerce a large

majority of the population to get involved. Emphasis on public policy, over voluntary individual actions, is necessary to achieve the extremely high levels of participation that the goals require. The following are examples of policies within the above categories that will be needed if buildings are to fulfill their assigned role in combating global warming. More stringent building energy codes need to be adopted, either through legislation or executive orders. However, while codes can help save large amounts of energy, their limitations also have to be kept in mind. For example, they do not cover all the energy used in buildings (e.g. plug loads), and they will only save energy if people comply with them. It would be simple to write a zeroenergy building code right now, but it would have almost no

Codes.

Huge LCD screens like this one use significant energy

Commissioning, along with on-going maintenance, ensures that buildings operate as intended

impact because few design and construction professionals have either the knowledge or the budget to comply. Major code changes therefore need to be accompanied by appropriate levels of education and training. needs to become a universal practice. Unfortunately, because of the customized nature of commissioning, it is difficult to write explicit, enforceable requirements into the energy code. Therefore, a more effective policy focus is to educate owners so they insist and contractually require that buildings operate properly upon initial occupancy.

Commissioning

Maintenance. Building owners, tenants and homeowners currently have no legal obligation to maintain energyrelated equipment, and it is difficult, given the millions of existing buildings, to envision a practical, enforceable regulatory mechanism that could alter this situation. A nonregulatory policy option would be an education campaign on the economic and environmental benefits of good maintenance. Another approach would be to provide free or subsidized building maintenance services funded by tax dollars or utility ratepayers; utilities have offered direct service programs of various types for decades, so this is not a particularly radical suggestion.

Building operation and occupant behavior have an enormous impact on energy consumption; yet, again, it is difficult to conceive of an effective regulatory mechanism to address these issues. In the absence of regulation, society as a whole will need to embrace an energy efficiency ethic if wide-spread advances are to be made. Public policies encouraging such an ethic include social marketing campaigns, education about how to save energy and the cost of wasting it, and public recognition awards. There are many examples of wide-spread attitudinal changes that have occurred in our society in the last 50 years: civil rights, smoking, the role of women and drunk driving come immediately to mind. Without underestimating the resources and passion that it took to make such changes, it seems possible that societal concern over climate change will result in such a major shift. Plug loads.

Both mandated policies and voluntary

programs can enable better efficiency standards for plug loads. On the policy front, minimum efficiency standards for most large energy-consuming equipment are regulated by federal legislation, which preempts individual states from adopting more stringent standards. The federal standards are updated on a periodic basis through public processes run by the U.S. Department of Energy, but many years can pass between update cycles and, historically, these processes have resulted in only small efficiency gains due to effective industry opposition. The Executive Branch has the authority to order the Department of Energy to pursue efficiency more aggressively; using this authority would make it much easier to achieve stricter standards. On the voluntary front, programs that encourage the purchase of Energy Star products and other high efficiency equipment have proven to help transform markets. Tax credits and other incentives can be implemented to better promote and support these programs. Renewable energy systems. The high costs of

renewable energy systems, particularly photovoltaic and solar thermal systemsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;the only ones broadly suitable for installation on individual buildings and homesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;are preventing renewable energy system adoption on a more universal level. Though federal and state tax credits and utility incentives are available and have made the price palatable to a small segment of the population, market penetration remains low. Increased federal investment in basic research and commercialization of new technologies could eventually lead to significant decreases in the cost of production. In conclusion, fighting global warming through the largescale creation of zero-energy buildings is feasible, but it will be challenging. All of the seven areas discussed will need to be addressed at a level of political and financial commitment far beyond what has been seen to date. On a positive note, examples of the types of buildings and homes we need already exist and more are being planned. Many states have at least some of the necessary policies in place and society appears to be evolving rapidly in attitude, if not yet in practice. There is room for optimism, as long as it is coupled with action at both the personal and political level.

endnotes

[1] Note that ZEB does not mean that no energy is used. It typically refers to a building that produces as much energy as it uses on an annual basis. The standard approach is to first make the building as energy efficient as possible, and then use renewable energy to generate what is needed to equal the remaining consumption. [2] See http://architecture2030.org/2030_challenge/index.html. [3] See, for example, http://www.nwalliance.org/research/reports/ E07-174.pdf.

Fall 2009

David Cohan is the Manager of Codes & Standards at the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. He can be contacted at dcohan@nwalliance.org.

WHATâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S IN YOUR WATER? If there is rigid PVC piping in your community water system, you and your family could be exposed to bacteria, lead and other toxins. PVC has been banned by: The City of San Francisco The City of Seattle Microsoft Target Walmart Go to www.CleanWaterPipeCouncil.org to learn more about the potential health and environmental impacts of rigid PVC in your community water system.

CLICK

for more info about this important issue

Poetry Corner By George Schuchart President, Schuchart Corporation ILBL Community Member

2AM Insomnia Carbon sequestering, relentlessly pestering my daylight autonomy without any harmony. Net-zero seems so surreal Will I, too, be a phased material? LBC, PV Infiltration cannot be. What is my E.U.I. anyway? Câ&#x20AC;&#x2122;mon man Show your metal The answer is in the sixth petal.

Cascadia announces a new organization to support the Living Building Challenge, the vigorous performance standard that is transforming the built environment throughout North America and beyond. Comprised of the leading green building experts, futurists and thought-leaders, we believe that providing a compelling vision for the future is a fundamental requirement of reconciling humanityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s relationship with the natural world.

Stir the pot. Infuse with inspiration and poetry. Embrace the psychology of the end game. Lead the market forward. Create models for the future.

Join the Living Building Community.

Fall 2009

BY JENN Y SEIF ERT

Dennis David Korten: A Story Teller for a Wilde: An Evangelist New Economy for Change

For decades, economic visionary and author David Korten has been tirelessly working to redirect the human course away from the destructive patterns of global corporate rule. Led by the belief that those who control prevailing cultural stories control society, Korten is striving to rewrite the human story and reframe our shared understanding of a prosperous future to that of a life-serving economy that is ruled not by dominating corporations and establishments, but by communities and a mature consciousness. Kortenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s lauded books are fueling the movement to reconstruct our economy and society. His international best-seller, When Corporations Rule the World (1995), has helped to frame the resistance against corporate globalization. The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community (2006), and his most recent, Agenda for a New Economy: From Phantom Wealth to Real Wealth (2009), unveil the fictitious sense of prosperity and resulting harm generated by an Empire Culture and Wall Street economy, and illustrate his vision for the new human

trim tab

story through the framework of the Earth Community and a Main Street economy. A believer in the transformative power of engaged citizens, Korten has also been instrumental in the founding and development of numerous citizen groups that are working to shift the story of humanity through honest dialogue and the promotion of living economies, such as the People-Centered Development Forum (PCD Forum), Positive Futures Network, Business Alliance for Local Living Economies (BALLE), and Yes! Magazine. His most recent, the New Economy Working Group, is a partnership between the Institute for Policy Studies, YES! Magazine, BALLE, and the PCD Forum, whose goal is to reframe the economic policy debate to put the focus on improving the health of human, social, and natural capital, rather than the growth of profits and economic throughput. Korten explains to Trim Tab his vision for the new human story and how building professionals can participate in the movement to rewrite it. story continues

the non-hierarchical model of partnership. I refer to the one as Empire and the other as Earth Community. Earth Community features shared power, mutual accountability, and cooperative self-organization in the manner of healthy ecosystems. Life naturally organizes, by nested “system” hierarchies, as distinct from hierarchies of domination or central control. The nearest equivalent in nature to contemporary economic systems centrally controlled by powerful global financial institutions for the exclusive benefit of their top managers is a cancer that seeks its own unlimited growth without regard to the consequences for the body on which its own existence ultimately depends. Do you feel like we are making strides towards the Great Turning, or does it seem that Empire Culture is still prevailing in shaping people’s reaction to the economy and the recent political shake-up?

TT:

There has been a tension between the forces of domination and the forces of partnership throughout human history that for thousands of years were resolved decisively in the favor of domination. This began to change as the Enlightenment and the American Revolution spread the idea that every person has the right to a say in the decisions that affect their lives. Over the past half century, we have seen a spreading awakening from the cultural trance of Empire. Many of those who experience this awakening have formed what I call liberated cultural spaces in which to explore the possibilities of Earth Community. The green building and local living economies movements are leading examples of the creation of liberated cultural spaces as a change strategy.

DK: Trim Tab :

You’ve spent several decades pushing back against status quo thinking. With books like When Corporations Rule the World, you helped ignite a movement of people thinking differently about the economy. What got you started down this path?

For some thirty years I worked as part of the foreign aid establishment on a commitment to end global poverty, and for twenty-one of these years I resided overseas in low income countries, specifically Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Philippines, and Indonesia. I gradually came to realize that the development models being promoted by the official aid system were increasing the gap between rich and poor, pushing billions into ever more desperate poverty, destroying forest and coastal ocean ecosystems, and disrupting once rich cultures that supported a strong sense of responsibility to family and community.

David Korten:

As I looked upstream for the source of this dysfunction, I found that the economic policies favored by most official aid agencies, and particularly by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, favored the interests of global corporations over the interests of people and communities. Eventually, I realized that these same market fundamentalist policies were accelerating social and environmental breakdown in high income countries as well, including the United States. TT: Can you briefly summarize the major differences between

the Era of Empire and Earth Community, cultural models which you present in The Great Turning, for our readers?

DK: As Riane Eisler noted in her classic Chalice and the Blade, there are two basic models for organizing human activity. One is the hierarchical model of domination. The other is

Fall 2009

That said, the Empire culture, which is actively cultivated by corporate media and deeply embedded in our educational systems, continues to frame political debate and rulemaking regarding our economic institutions. This has been painfully evident in government’s response to the Wall Street financial crash. As different as their intellects and values are, the responses of George W. Bush and Barack Obama have been virtually identical—both have sought to restore irreparably corrupted financial institutions to their former state of function by pouring in trillions of dollars— public outrage against Wall Street notwithstanding. The Wall Street system doesn’t need to be fixed. It needs to be replaced with a new money system designed to serve people and nature. Many of our readers are ready to make the big shift— what do you tell such people? How do they begin their transformation? TT:

DK:

We each contribute to the Great Turning when we act to:

1. Change the framing stories of the culture through honest conversation. 2. Create a new reality through bottom up initiatives to create living economies and living buildings. 3. Change the rules of the game through political action to favor a just and sustainable New Economy. Changing the framing stories of the culture is foundational; for example, the story that it is our human nature to be individualistic, greedy, and violentâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;which is a foundation of the idea that dominator systems of organization are inevitable and beneficial. Similarly, the story that Earth is an open frontier of limitless resources free for the taking is a foundation of the idea that advertising to drive consumption to generate profits for the already wealthy is the key growing prosperity for all. The contrasting Earth Community stories recognize that extreme individualism, greed, and violence are pathologies that manifest the dysfunctions of the immature human consciousness. Our capacity for love, cooperation, and service manifests the potential of our mature nature. We can choose to cultivate the latter and thereby learn to share the resources of a finite living Earth to secure the longterm well-being of all. Are you encouraged or discouraged by what youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve seen from the Obama administration so far? What advice would you give to President Obama to help him shift the nation to an Earth Community?

TT:

Barack Obama may be the most able and dedicated leader to ever serve as U.S. president. That said, the forces of corporate rule have sown social and political divisions so deep as to make the United States nearly ungovernable. They have convinced much of the public that government canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t work and the only alternative to a system of rapacious corporate greed is the stifling bureaucratic oppression of socialism.

Honest conversation is the most powerful of revolutionary actions. DK :

Be true to your values and vision, as they represent the values and vision that most people share in their heart of hearts, even though they are rarely reflected in the corporate controlled public discourse.

You say repeatedly that people all over the world share the dream of happy and healthy children, families, communities and natural systems. How would you then explain how we have allowed the Empire Culture and Wall Street to prevail? How can we begin to realign ourselves with our shared dream?

TT:

Empire keeps us separated and conditions us to avoid the conversations we must have to discover that our private dreams of a world that works for all align with the dreams of the vast majority of humanity. Honest conversation is the most powerful of revolutionary actions.

DK:

I would love to have the opportunity to share with President Obama the vision of an Earth Community economy of rule based markets and strong caring communities as outlined in Agenda for a New Economy: From Phantom Wealth to Real Wealth. In the end, however, he is a politician facing enormous pressures from Wall Street power holders. We the people must mobilize to create an irresistible countervailing political force to strip Wall Street of its economic and political power and complete the great historical transition to true democracy. TT: What advice would you give to a building professional (e.g.

architect, engineer, developer, etc.) to help him/her shift the industry and their communities to an Earth Community?

trim tab

Can you summarize your vision for a new economy based on Main Street instead of Wall Street?

TT:

DK: More community, caring relationships, creative expression, cultural exchange, and authentic communication. More equality, leisure, material frugality, durability, and local closed-loop production cycles. More local control, ownership, and self-reliance in food, energy, and construction materials, with everyone participating as both worker and owner. Less consumption, waste, commuting, auto-dependence, air travel, and long-haul shipping. More peace, less war. More life, less money. How do we begin to declare and obtain independence from Wall Street and begin building this new economy?

TT:

Every decision we make as workers, consumers, investors, and politically active citizens to favor local independent businesses over Wall Street corporations and to strengthen the relationships of caring communities contributes to building the New Economy. For your readers who are looking for guidance on the steps they can take, I

DK:

recommend subscribing to YES! Magazine, which tells the stories of what countless people are already doing.

TT:

The building industry is among the hardest hit in the economic meltdown. How can the industry rebuild itself to become more sustainable, embracing Main Street and implementing a new, life-serving economy?

expanded edition of Agenda for a New Economy. My priority remains much the same as it has been for more than two decades: to reframe the public debate on economy policy in ways consistent with the imperatives and opportunities of the 21st century. I have learned a lot in the interim and it is no longer the lonely work it once was, but I expect that this priority will keep me busy for a few more years.

TT:

DK: It must rebuild on a very different model of

organization. The conventional patterns of building that have prevailed since the mid-twentieth century have served financial values to the exclusion of life values, deepened social divisions, and driven the destruction of community and the environment. As with every other sector of the economy, the building industry must be restructured in ways that place life values ahead of financial values. It will require less emphasis on pure profit seeking enterprises and greater use of nonprofit or cooperative forms of enterprise.

TT: How do standards such as the Living Building Challenge

play a role in the shift to the new economy?

What new initiatives are on the horizon for you?

DK: I will soon turn my attention to preparing an updated and

TT: Amid a deteriorating economy, society and environment,

what gives you hope?

The fact that so many people are awakening from the cultural trance of Empire and embracing the living economy/living building challenge.

DK:

More information about David Korten, his books, and his work can be found at www.davidkorten.org jenn y seif ert is the managing editor of Trim Tab, and has also written for Ecometro.com.

DK: They require turning from the machine to the organism

WATER TREATMENT

S US

TAINABLE

I LDING BU

SUSTAINABLE

VIS

DECENTRALIZED

NATIONAL

as the framing metaphor. The New Economy is a living economy and requires that we learn to think like living organisms functioning as nodes in living ecosystems. The Living Building Challenge places the building industry at the forefront of this transition.

OR PROGR

Celebrating 10 years of the Sustainable Building Advisor course!

Enroll in this nine-month certificate course for professionals in the green building industry and become a Certified Sustainable Building Advisor (CSBA).

l l l l l l ll l ll constructed wetland (wastewater treatment) as landscape amenity Decentralized & Bio-Filtration Pioneers

(20+ years)

Constructed Wetland Specialists Scales: Single family • Cluster • Campus • Muni Phases: Pay-as-you-go, No Big Plant/Pipes Living Building Challenge • LEED

l l

l ll l

Integrated Design

Harvest • Use • Treatment • Reuse Energy Water Nexus

Residential • Commercial

www. W ho le Wa te r .c om • 8 0 0 .9 0 1 .2 7 8 1

more than 20 SBA course locations nationwide

www.nasbap.org

SUBJECT:

FW: Read This!

Where nature and living buildings meet Janine Benyus and Jason F. McLennan discuss the intersection of biomimicry and the Living Building Challenge in this podcast.

TO:

CC:

Find a walkable city

FROM:

Looking for a new place to live that would allow you to go car free? This site will help you.

Articles, websites and other social media that are also turning the ship

Dear Readers, This section contains interesting and forward-thinking social media pieces that are also raising awareness and facilitating change. We encourage you to check them out! Simply click to view:

Bill McKibben on the Colbert Report Watch the recent appearance of the founder and director of 350.org on the Colbert Report. Though there’s nothing funny about climate change, this will likely make you laugh.

Top 10 Green Building Reports you should know about Need to brush up on the most recent green building research? This link will help. Cascadia’s recent valuation study even made the list!

Green building.

Green Business.

Green Employees. 10,000 Northwest donors already support the environment at work.

Employees can support programs that beneﬁt the community and the planet. Find out how at

www.esw.org

Will you be

10,001

COLUM N BY BILL WALS H

It Bears Repeating PVC Elimination May Be the Most Significant Contribution You Can Make to Homeland Security 20

Fall 2009

In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the federal government identified U.S. chemical plants as one of the sectors of America’s infrastructure most vulnerable to terrorist attack.1 Common sense efforts to reduce or eliminate risk by requiring chemical facilities to use available safer technologies over known high-risk commodities such as chlorine gas met with stiff resistance from chemical industry lobbyists. In 2006, then-Senator Barack Obama supported such a requirement, stating, “[B]y employing safer technologies, we can reduce the attractiveness of chemical plants as a target.” He was critical of chemical industry lobbying efforts for the exemption: “We cannot allow chemical industry lobbyists to dictate the terms of this debate. We cannot allow our security to be hijacked by corporate interests.”2 But, the interim law passed that year prohibited the Department of Homeland Security from requiring chemical plants to use safer chemical technologies. These rules expire on October 4, 2009. On June 18, 2009, the US House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee [voted] on the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009, which would replace the expiring regulations and require some chemical facilities to use inherently safer technologies where feasible in order to reduce inherent risks. There is broad-based support for this approach. At a 2008 congressional hearing on a similar measure, the Association of American Railroads testified that “It’s time for the nation’s big chemical companies to stop making the dangerous chemicals that can be replaced by safer substitutes or new technologies currently in the marketplace.... And if they won’t do it, Congress should do it for them.”3 Previously, a 2006 report from the GAO concluded, “Implementing inherently safer technologies potentially could lessen the consequences of a terrorist attack by reducing the chemical risks present at facilities, thereby making facilities less attractive targets.”4 And a June 2006 National Academy of Sciences study endorsed the adoption of safer technologies as “the most desirable solution to preventing chemical releases.”5 endnotes

[1] In May 2009, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) identified approximately 6,400 high-risk U.S. chemical facilities. According to a March 2008 Congressional Research Service review of EPA data, 100 U.S. chemical plants each put 1 million or more people at risk. In 2004, the Homeland Security Council projected that an attack on a chemical facility would kill 17,500 people, seriously injure 10,000 more people and send an additional 100,000 people to the hospital. (Documentation available upon request.) [2] Congressional Record, March 30, 2006, Section 43, p. S2612. Library of Congress. [3] Association of American Railroads. “Homeland Security Committee urged to consider safer chemicals.” trim tab

One of the most talked about impacts of the law is the likelihood that it will reduce chlorine gas usage because of the huge risks its storage and transport pose to Americans. In New Jersey, after the passage of a similar state law, the Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act, the number of water works using chlorine has dropped from 575 in 1988 to just 22 in 2001.6 A 2007 report by the Center for American Progress documents the national trend away from chlorine usage at water treatment facilities and the resulting reductions in risk to tens of millions of Americans. The new legislation affirms the commitment of those in the green building movement who avoid PVC building products. The green building movement should join the chorus of voices supporting the new federal law. Chlorine gas is an essential building block of many unhealthy building materials, and a key factor in many of the health and environmental problems that are associated with these materials still widely used in green buildings.7 Polyurethane production, for example, represents an estimated 11% of the end uses of chlorine gas. PVC manufacturing is by far the single largest user of chlorine gas, consuming in excess of 40% of the chlorine gas produced in this country. Building materials account for more than 70% of all products manufactured of PVC. What’s more, other highly toxic chemical building blocks of PVC - ethylene dichloride and vinyl chloride – would also be subject to the “inherently safer technology” provisions of the envisioned chemical security legislation. For this reason it bears repeating: PVC Elimination May Be The Most Significant Contribution You Can Make to Homeland Security. This article was originally published on June 17, 2009 in Healthy Building News. Bill Walsh is the Executive Director of the Healthy Building Network.

[4] GAO. Homeland Security: DHS Is Taking Steps to Enhance Security at Chemical Facilities, but Additional Authority Is Needed. 2006. [5] National Research Council, Committee on Assessing Vulnerabilities Related to the Nation’s Chemical Infrastructure. Terrorism and the Chemical Infrastructure: Protecting People and Reducing Vulnerabilities. National Academies Press, 2006. [6] US PIRG. “Protecting Our Hometowns: Preventing Chemical Terrorism in America: A Guide for Policymakers and Advocates,” p. 13. 2002. [7] For example, the presence of chlorine in PVC is key in making the release of highly carcinogenic dioxin unavoidable when PVC is manufactured or burned. 21

Being a Change Agent: How to Take a Stand from your Heart b y Pa u l W erder Leaders are change agents. Yet it’s not a matter of your position or authority; it’s a matter of your passion and intention to make a contribution to a cause bigger than you. “Bigger than you” is the critical concept. Change agents who lead from their view of what’s right, or their view of what should happen, can easily get caught up in their own ego. Much can be accomplished through will power or a strong ego, but it’s not the most effective way to be a change agent. Even with a worthy cause, leading from your ego will create more resistance to your honorable intentions than is necessary. When you are in this mode, you will notice yourself expressing judgment, impatience, frustration, despair, and other counterproductive aspects of our humanity. The subtle internal message driving your efforts from the ego is some version of, “it’s up to me,” or, “I have to overcome the ones who aren’t part of the solution.” People on the receiving end of your ego will stop responding to your passionate cause and begin reacting to your presentation style. There’s a definite limit to what you can accomplish as an ego driven change agent. So what is the highest road for a change agent to take? First, it is important to be aligned completely with the most positive, inspiring intention you can find in your heart. You need to realize this intention is not from you, it is for you. It is a gift given to you to support your journey through life. This inspiring intention will constantly require growth and surrender to your cause, and at times it will feel like it is unpleasantly pulling you through a knothole, so you can leave your ego behind. Surrendering means you have to give up your own point of view of what should be happening, how to get there, and how much credit you get. You have to let go of your judgments, impatience, and so on. In giving up your point of view of the “one right way,” you can discover what’s trying to happen through you. Your gift is like a seed that is meant to grow into a beautiful tree; but the seed can’t

Fall 2009

grow when you allow the weeds of distrust, frustration, power struggles, pride, and judgment to block the natural discovery of what is being asked of you in each moment. In this experience of alignment, you have an inspired future you intend to bring forth, but you are not at all sidetracked by an agenda of how to get there. You take your stand with confidence that is not dependent on having all of the answers. You keep yourself in a state of discovery, as opposed to letting yourself get agitated because the world isn’t lining up to support the answer or approach you are attached to. The second step is to allow your audience or potential allies to be exactly as they are. If they are doubtful, apathetic or critical, include them and their point of view or emotional reaction without reacting back. Instead of defending or arguing your point, simply say, “Please help me understand.” When people throw tomatoes at you, dig down deeper into your heart and discover what’s being asked of you—sometimes it’s patience; sometimes it’s assertiveness; other times you are being asked to offer clear information or just a compassionate ear. In these moments, your stand is being challenged from the outside and you need to deepen your internal strength. Your inspiration needs to be expressed as a strong invitation. This will allow you to create a connection with those who have not yet entered into a dialogue with you. It is not an invitation to embrace your point of view or sign up to do what you want them to. It is an invitation to discover together the best outcome related to your stand and the best way to get there. You will find that validating the merit of an opposing point of view and acknowledging the need to figure out the approach that best includes that viewpoint is more effective than pushing your idea. For example, “Now that I understand your reasons for being so cost conscious, let’s find the best way to bring sustainability into this project in a way that you can afford now, and provide a solid financial return as soon as possible.” The third step of taking a stand from your heart involves being in a dialogue with people, not a discussion. A discussion is like a debate, with someone’s point of view eventually prevailing over other people’s perspectives. A discussion ends with winners and losers. A dialogue, however, focuses on genuinely understanding one another before any one view point can be embraced. A dialogue allows for an authentic connection and a sharing of perspectives. You are now engaged with their hearts and they are now engaged with your invitation. During this phase of your conversation, you transmit your

best understanding of what you are standing for and how you intend to get there, while remaining open to hearing other points of view. Your inspired passion is coming through loud and clear, but not in a convincing way. Instead, it is an open-minded, heart to heart exchange between people who feel free to share their assumptions, concerns, and inner most feelings about a meaningful topic. You will both learn what makes the other person tick, and there is a great chance you will discover the course of action that allows you to stand on common ground with those you want to engage. In summary, to take a stand from your heart, begin with a pure, selfless passion for a reality you intend to bring into existence. Set aside your own attachment to the means and the end you have in mind. Allow others to have their own perspective, including skepticism, apathy, and criticism, and hold their opposition in your heart without judgment and without wavering on your stand. Then engage in authentic dialogue until you truly understand one another. During your dialogue, allow yourself to learn and be moved by

what you hear, without letting go of your pure, selfless passion for a new reality. Also, continue to transmit the truth in your heart, as it evolves and is refined by the dialogue, until what you are standing for is moved forward as effectively as possible by everyone youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve engaged. Our work in the green building community is precious and we have no time to waste. Becoming a movement of leaders, who are powerful change agents, is our opportunity, as well as our responsibility. If you are ready to take a stand from your heart, you will become even more a part of the solution than you already are. Just check your ego at the door and go for it; and give your colleagues full permission to remind you to set your ego aside when you forget to do so! Paul Werder is the CEO and founder of LionHeart Consulting Inc. www.lionhrt.com This article is part of a series on leadership that he is writing specially for Trim Tab.

THE GREEN WASH

trim tab

Thereâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s strength in numbers Become a member today and take your place at the leading edge of the green building movement.

Cascadia Region Green Building Council

Join Today

Fall 2009

Flushing Outdated Thinking story by jason f. mclennan

Transforming our Relationship with Water and Waste

trim tab

From the very moment that we are first taught as children to “use the potty,” we are indoctrinated with a series of lessons that end up shaping and enabling our society’s most deep-rooted cultural taboos. The process of producing waste moves from being a “magical, natural act” to something dirty, shameful and dangerous. We are afraid of and ashamed of our own waste. These taboos are so ingrained that they have spawned a century of enormous infrastructure projects in every community in the Western world. The underlying assumptions are never questioned and alternatives, even when simpler, are treated with ridicule and contempt. “Out of sight, out of mind and somewhere else” is the mantra behind the thinking. Simply flush and send “it” away. But here’s the thing: We have a big problem on our hands now as a result of this ingrained and outmoded thinking; a problem that is emerging in just about every community in North America. It is threatening to bankrupt many over the next decade and at the same time cause significant environmental damage each and every day it remains un-dealt with. Our waste treatment and processing methods are horribly outmoded, as are our ways of thinking about human waste. Centralized municipal treatment and the vast network of conveyance systems, much of which were installed 50 to 100 years ago when cities were more geographically concentrated, are breaking down and showing the effects of their age. The majority of them were built during an era of significantly cheaper labor and material costs and the tasks of rebuilding, replacing or expanding such services are creating problems of enormous scale.

to the environmental implications when cheaper and cleaner opportunities are readily available that work just as well or better.

History

The typical response is either to throw good money after bad in the form of temporary repairs, or to use already depleted public funds to build replacement facilities even farther out of town. This is the “sunk-costs argument,” which is the poster child of failed leadership. Neither approach solves the long-term environmental and economic problems created by centralized systems; nor does either deal with the bigger question raised:

When it comes to water, public health and sanitation, industrial waste treatment systems currently operating in most American and Canadian towns and cities were designed with 19th-century thinking. There was – and still is – a strong belief in the need to send our wastes as far away as possible and in the belief that this is the only safe thing to do with it. This is part of the general philosophy that the “solution to pollution is dilution.” Simply dump it into water and send it away. This outdated philosophy was created because a long time ago, when sewer systems were first being created, water-borne illnesses and fecal contamination were not properly understood. But now, when we do in fact understand how to safeguard against these health threats, we throw science aside because of the power of inertia and taboo. The way we do things is so ingrained in our culture that to do otherwise is considered insane. Flushing it away is more “civilized” and “advanced” than any other possible solution, or so the theory goes.

Why are we so afraid of our own waste to the point that we will bankrupt our communities and turn a blind eye

Many people don’t realize that early flush toilet manufacturers engaged in active marketing campaigns to

Fall 2009

scare and entice the public into buying their products just like with any industry. Demand for the systems we have now were “manufactured” just like with any consumer product. People were warned of the “dangers” even when risks were properly managed or nearly non-existent and shamed into wanting flush toilets and centralized waste treatment systems at the threat of being branded as uncivilized. It worked. As natural and necessary as eating and drinking, voiding came to be seen as shameful. Now, just about every community in North America and Europe handles their waste the exact same way. Culturally speaking, we continue not to question our basic assumptions more than a century later, despite the costs increasingly shouldered by communities that can’t afford such a knee-jerk set of assumptions. It needs to be said very clearly that the improper handling of human waste can cause serious health problems. Previous generations suffered greatly with typhoid fever, cholera and dysentery until flushing toilets placed barriers between human beings and fecal bacteria.1 No solution should even be considered if it increases the risk of these problems plaguing us again. But what this article is hoping to do is to remind people of some fundamental principles.

trim tab

1. Just because a technology or system solves a problem does not inherently mean that it is the best system or technology to solve the problem. 2. Any technology or system that is never challenged is destined to develop additional problems that can end up greater than the problems originally solved as realities change through time. It is my belief that centralized municipal or regionalized waste treatment systems are not only far from being the ideal solution, but they are creating significant problems that can no longer be ignored.

Process

Each time we flush into a conventional centralized sewage system,2 we take a several-ounce problem and turn it into a several-gallon problem by adding clean water to send waste on a journey to a facility that is often miles away. Pumping it that far requires enormous amounts of energy and relies on underground sewers costing significant funds to upgrade and replace, paid for by taxpayers whose coffers are already low. The waste is stripped of its useful nutrient content, is dealt with in a process that typically emits significant global warming gases, and often uses powerful chemicals. This is all before being pumped back out of the facility, sent on its way again via a sprawling maze of pipes that crawl beneath city streets

[ABOVE] Sewage outlow dumping into a larger water body. [RIGHT] Naturalized waste treatment systems can become a cultural amenity and increase biodiversity

and lead to a body of water somewhere in the region. Leaking pipes litter the route along this round-trip journey, failing to fully contain the very substances they are meant to carry. 3 This system is nothing less than insane. As a way of addressing a public health risk, it is extreme overkill; as Amory Lovins would say, “it’s like cutting butter with a chainsaw.”4 There are saner, cheaper, more ecologically benign solutions to the challenge of waste management that actually could result in community amenities rather than community problems. As the saying goes, we are literally “flushing money down the toilet” and then ending up with more problems than we solved in the first place.

Understanding the Problems with the Current Paradigm Here are just a few of the problems inherent in centralized waste treatment systems that are often overlooked and misunderstood:

The Economic Realities

The concentration of wealth. Large centralized systems,

like any mega-project, funnel sizeable contracts toward a

Fall 2009

disproportionately small number of contractors who are big enough to handle the scale of the infrastructure. For many medium and small-sized communities (or smaller states and provinces), these companies are almost always from far away, taking the majority of tax dollars elsewhere and concentrating profits in the hands of a small number of individuals (who also in turn fight any notion of progress).5 The “Halliburton Effect” ensues. Decentralization, on the other hand, spreads funds throughout the community, allowing for a larger playing field, supporting smaller business and keeping more public funds closer to home. This trend is well documented in the energy efficiency field; decentralized efforts to cut energy use on the demand side employ more people and also save taxpayers money than building new power plants to meet larger demand. Guess what tends to get funded? It’s important to understand that utilities are, in essence, monopolies. Backwards business models. Many communities also get trapped into backwards business models where major sources of revenue come from sewer connection fees. This creates a perverse incentive to encourage behavior that enriches one department’s budgets at the expense of the overall financial performance of the community. Even if a project were willing to handle its own wastes on site (at

its own expense), many communities require such projects to “pay twice” by installing redundant infrastructure and paying hook-up fees, often at great ecological impact on some sites. This has for years been a problem with energy utilities that had no incentive to help their customers use less energy. This is not a case of government serving the best fiscal interests of the public. NIMBYism and property values. Nobody wants a large waste treatment plant near their home or office – or for that matter anywhere they are likely to see or come near. Plants are unattractive, they smell and they lower surrounding property values. I, for one, believe that any public infrastructure should result in a net increase in value for a community.

As a result, new facilities are built well away from the neighborhoods they serve, drawing even more energy to transport materials to and from and broadening their environmental impact. Alternatively, many decentralized processing systems can actually enhance the beauty of a place with wetlands and lagoons that teem with forms of life that convert the waste. Urban “living machines” or “eco-machines”6 (biological waste treatment systems designed at the building or neighborhood scale) have indeed been viewed as so attractive that many projects have

trim tab

placed them in highly visible locations in their buildings, including lobbies and major gathering areas. Imagine waste treatment that, instead of being ugly, attracted tourists and increased property values! Financial resource depletion. Replacing and expanding

large centralized treatment systems and their miles of supporting infrastructure either nearly bankrupts local governments or will do so over the coming decades. Throughout the U.S. and Canada, municipalities are waking up to the fact that their infrastructures are aging poorly, and there is no longer money to pay for the necessary upgrades and retrofits. Continuing to repair old systems – with their miles and miles of leaky pipes – just doesn’t make sense.7 As we’ve created a society of sprawl, we’ve institutionalized a set of expectations that are impossible to maintain. Building new centralized treatment plants can mean billions in construction costs, with millions more in annual operations costs. Only to see even more money needing to be spent a few decades later to do the same thing again.

Existing waste treatment approaches severely limit opportunities for innovation. It is fair to say that there has been much less innovation in waste treatment than in most sectors due to a limitation on acceptable treatment practices. If we branched out beyond Barriers to innovation.

the old way of doing things and allowed for decentralized approaches more readily, the market would open up to allow new entrepreneurial efforts, new technologies and new systems. New lines of business would emerge over a larger field of players, channeling revenues into local economies and giving consumers a broader range of waste management options from which to choose. True market-based economics would reign, but would lead to more ecologically sound solutions while also lowering costs. Companies that currently offer highly innovative decentralized approaches barely survive, as current regulations prohibit their use in most jurisdictions. From a business standpoint alone, we need to challenge conventional thought.

Understanding True Risk

This tunnel-vision is hypocritical, and does not truly represent the public’s best interest. Obviously, the fear of

But let’s explore the flip-side to this argument and take it one step further. Faulty and expensive centralized systems potentially pose a far greater long-term risk to any community due to the scale of failure that is possible when and if things do go wrong. When large-scale systems fail, they fail on a grand scale. In February of this year, nearly 900,000 gallons of untreated sewage spilled into the San Francisco Bay when heavy rains overwhelmed cracked pipes.8 In August 2006, a pump station failure sent an estimated 30,000 gallons of raw sewage into Santa Monica Bay, closing miles of beaches.9 In 2000, seven people died and more than 2,300 became ill in the small community of Walkerton, Ontario when e-coli contaminated the water supply.10 The reports keep piling up, yet public

Prescription drugs are finding their way in municipal water supplies all over this country.

Combined Storm and Sanitary Sewars continue to pose significant challenges to cities all over the US and Canada.

Risk. In our built environment, we surround ourselves

daily with much more dangerous things than human waste. If public health and building officials are comfortable enough to allow natural gas (a highly toxic, flammable and explosive substance) to flow into our homes, why is a sitespecific composting toilet considered such a risk? Why are requests to install neighborhood-scale waste treatment systems or building-scale systems always met with such resistance? And why is the specter of public health waived as the overarching issue?

public health risks associated with decentralized systems in the 21st century is emotional and not scientific. If we can institute acceptable protocols to have people pump their own gas in their cars (which is really risky) or cook with propane (also potentially deadly), then certainly we can create protocols that allow for decentralized building-scale and neighborhood-scale waste treatment systems that are safe and reliable. Certainly, if city or county staff can be trained to operate heavy machinery in the field or repair fallen electrical wires over a huge geographic range, they can be trained to monitor and test and correct decentralized systems – or require proper inspections by the private sector. If this were not the case, we wouldn’t have elevators either! To operate an elevator, you are required to have annual safety inspections that follow specific protocols to ensure public safety. The same should be true for many decentralized systems.

Fall 2009

A vast array of pharmaceuticals - including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones - have been found in the drinking water supply of at least 41 million Americans. demand for change remains stagnant because the taboo is so ingrained. People don’t know that there are better solutions available. Drugs in the water. This is one of the dirtiest secrets

about centralized waste treatment systems, but the truth is beginning to leak out. By aggregating an entire community’s waste, with no way of knowing who is flushing what, we accumulate and concentrate a mix of whatever chemicals leave our bodies through excretion or get dumped down the drain. A 2008 Associated Press study reported that trace levels of prescription drugs were found in 24 of the 62 major metropolitan water systems it tested – and these levels are rising. The report states that “a vast array of pharmaceuticals — including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones — have been found in the drinking water supplies of at least 41 million Americans.”11 Treatment processes neither screen for nor remove such toxins, so they flow freely through the systems and into

our residential taps – and there is almost nothing we can do about it since we can’t stop it at the source. There are almost no studies that investigate the combined effects of many of these drugs, since most are tested in isolation. As the public sees these trends increasing, there will be demand for even more expensive filtration techniques and significant litigation risk for cities and counties. It is only a matter of time before people begin suing their local governments for failing to protect them from these drugs. Litigation risks are mitigated when people are responsible for their own safety or where risk of litigation can be compartmentalized at a neighborhood scale. Can our communities afford giant class action lawsuits? National security. I personally hate using this argument for anything, but it’s an argument that can’t be denied. Big infrastructure targets are attractive to unstable individuals or organizations with twisted political or social motivations. While it is arguably easier to protect fewer centralized sites, they represent significant risk precisely because collateral damage can be so significant and therefore attractive as a way of getting attention. Catastrophic failure of any centralized infrastructure can just as easily be naturally caused – earthquakes, tornados and the like can potentially create significant risks depending on how a community’s ability to function is affected. If a whole city couldn’t safely flush for a period of time, what are the risks associated with that?

Environmental Impacts Life cycle impacts. A thorough life cycle analysis (LCA) of a centralized waste treatment system would most likely show that its long-term environmental impact is considerably higher than that of most, if not all decentralized systems.12 Proponents of centralization argue that the status-quo approach creates less environmental strain than multiple decentralized systems and they often stand behind a veil of supposed life cycle Pumping gas is infinitely more dangerous than a composting toilet.... yet it is the latter that is often deemed risky.

trim tab

The Eco-machine at the Omega Center for Sustainable Living treats the waste from numerous buildings in a single facility.

Imagine if every tax dollar that was spent on wastewater infrastructure not only contributed to but enhanced the long-term economic, environmental and social vitality of our communities... thinking. It is certainly true that the embodied energy of centralized systems can often be lower than lots of smaller community-scale systems in terms of the waste treatment plant itself and the volume of material processed based on that embodied energy. However, once you factor in the miles of pipes leading to and from the facilities, and the energy required to move water and waste in and out, the actual LCA impact is enormous. Decentralized systems that can often rely solely on gravity rather than pumping energy would, over the life of the system, considerably out-perform a centralized system on an LCA basis. And again, if we move towards building-scale composting systems, there is simply no comparison in life cycle impacts. Simply put, centralized systems carry the largest environmental burdens of the options currently available. Most centralized waste treatment systems that use open tanks generate significant levels of gases that contribute to global warming through the waste treatment process itself (not even counting indirect CO2 releases through energy use from all that pumping). Even when methane is trapped and used for co-generation (an Climate change.

Fall 2009

expensive proposition), CO2 is still produced. Decentralized systems that are water-based have similar problems, but typically operate using a greater amount of aerobic rather than anaerobic digestion (resulting in lower emissions, since methane — a significantly more potent greenhouse gas — is minimized). Building-scale composting systems release even less CO2 primarily because the “several ounce problem” is never made into a several gallon problem. Stealing nutrients from nature. Nature is generous. In

functioning natural systems, everything is useful and there is no concept of waste. Animal droppings become food for other organisms and contribute to returning nutrients to the soil for the benefit of all living things. Humanity, on the other hand, now co-opts a significant portion of the planet’s available nutrient content for food,13 and then destroys those nutrients in our centralized waste treatment systems or dumps them in water where they create imbalances that lead to oxygen-starved water and a drop in biodiversity.

When we do away with our waste rather than returning it to the soil where it belongs, we deny it the life cycle it depends on for long-term health. We destroy biodiversity

and site fecundity. This is almost unspeakable selfishness and stupidity on an industrial scale. In order to keep our now nutrient-starved fields fertile, we have to then use industrial petrochemical fertilizers, which themselves create enormous problems. By being so afraid of our waste, we’ve submitted to a process that is slowly degrading our land’s ability to feed us. Psychological impact. We need to consider the long-term effects of our society’s infrastructure on the human species.

When we “flush away” our waste, we disconnect our actions from their results and we separate ourselves from the natural world even more. We become desensitized to the impacts of modern conveniences and the elegance of natural systems. Just as many children believe beef or chicken originates at the grocery store when they take no active role in its growth or preparation (and therefore become insensitive to animal suffering), humans who separate themselves from the potential environmental returns of their waste become insensitive to issues of water pollution and water quality. The more water becomes something you buy in a bottle or simply flush

trim tab

down the drain, the more wantonly we use it and the more we separate ourselves from the very source of life itself. We need to raise citizens who understand that we all live downstream from somewhere else and that there is no longer some other place where we can send our waste. How do we teach children to become good, responsible members of society if they aren’t even accountable for their very first “creations?”

Options, To Name Just a Few

Several forms of decentralized waste treatment and processing systems are available for site-specific or neighborhood-scale use. Here are just a few: 1. Composting toilets. Installed on a single-building scale, composting toilets represent the most decentralized approach to waste management – and the one with the smallest environmental footprint. This dry system collects solid and liquid waste and allows aerobic bacteria and fungi to destroy and/or stabilize pathogens and break the waste down to a fraction of its original volume. The end product is removed and

[RIGHT] Human waste can be converted into useful and safe compost to enrich soil. [FAR RIGHT] Constructed Wetlands, like this one, can be highly effective at waste treatment.

used as a soil conditioner.14 A wide variety of options are available, including self-contained units (that I don’t find highly effective) to centralized systems that have composting chambers in a basement. Most people have a difficult time with the idea of composting toilets and are uncomfortable with sitting over a large hole. But given that toilets account for between 30-40% of a household’s water use, composting toilets are nearly a silver bullet in addressing water shortages. For those who can’t live without flushing, a “foam flush” option is available that uses a tiny amount of water and foam to create a soapy rinse.

beautiful additions to any structure by creating a nonsmelly tropical greenhouse. 4. Constructed wetlands. As with a living machine, but without an enclosure, constructed wetlands rely on wetlands to do what they do best – filter and clean water. Constructed wetlands can be designed in stages to treat water to varying levels of quality and can become part of a community amenity or park.17 5. Small-scale bioreactors. Installed on a building scale, membrane bioreactors promote the natural composting process by utilizing micro-organisms, air and heat to break down human waste. Like other site-specific systems, they yield nutrient-rich effluent that can nurture edible plants, although greater energy is used than with other decentralized systems.18 A benefit of bioreactors is that they can be located in basements without need of sunlight. They are in essence a smaller cousin of centralized systems, but without all the piping and pumping.

2. Aquatron.15 Okay, this is actually a single technology, but I’m currently enamored with it. The Aquatron uses a conventional toilet, but through a patented centrifuge technology that separates the solids and liquids. Solids can be composted and the liquids handled through some sort of down-sized septic or onsite wetland. This system is perfect for less dense development, or, on a neighborhood scale, could be paired with a living machine. Even better is when the toilets have a urine diverter so that nitrogen is saved as a valuable resource.

Where we Need To Go from Here

3. Living Machines/Ecomachines. Capable of handling volumes generated by single buildings or entire neighborhoods, these systems carry waste through its entire biological cycle, ultimately using nutrients to nurture on site plants and microorganisms. Drawing minimal external energy, they mimic processes found in natural wetlands by creating ideal habitats.16 Living Machines can be enclosed in greenhouses and can be

While the technologies and strategies to completely transform our relationship with waste are clear, the pathway for our communities to transform themselves are much less so. There is considerable institutional and physical infrastructure that will get in the way, although the largest barriers remain our cultural taboos. The pathway to wastewater transformation will take several decades, but involves the following critical steps:

Fall 2009

The first step in any transformation has to begin with reducing overall water use through efficiency. While toilets now use much less water than in the recent past, there is absolutely no reason why progressive municipalities shouldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t immediately mandate dual-flush toilets and waterless urinals for all new construction. Older buildings should be given incentives to replace existing toilets and urinals. This mandate would result in a significant reduction in municipal water use in a very short time. Extra incentives could be put in place for a variety of reduction strategies, but individual homeowners would likely see a 15-20% reduction in water use immediately. Require water-saving devices.

Legalize decentralization and water reuse. The sooner

our building codes adapt to allow decentralized systems as well as rainwater harvesting and greywater re-use, the sooner we will all reap their economic and ecological benefits. Progressive communities will be those that scrub outmoded regulatory barriers to innovation and allow projects to opt for an approved decentralized approach. There are plenty of homeowners and developers that would immediately opt out of the current paradigm allowing for ample pilot programs in order to work out long-term procedures as our communities transition. Practical standards for safety and efficiency must be established for existing and future decentralized waste systems just as they are for other potentially hazardous technologies. We can be as rigorous in this area as we are with gasoline and propane storage and delivery and ensure protocols that protect public health. It is critical that procedures do not go overboard and require unreasonable and unpractical levels of protections. As

trim tab

part of the initial pilot transformations, standards and protocols would be adapted. Create incentives. Decentralization makes perfect fiscal

sense as long as there is a level playing field, but we can sweeten the pot by adding financial incentives for builders, developers and homeowners who adopt such designs. Business development incentives could be awarded to innovative waste treatment start-ups, spurning a local green economy. Smart municipalities are those that recognize that promoting decentralized systems buys them time to accommodate growth without having to expand municipal capacity. Instead of losing customers, they are shifting to long-term partners. At a minimum, disincentives such as requiring redundant systems and sewer connections when not needed should be eliminated so that people have a choice.

While opening up possibilities for new technologies, itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s time to stem the bleeding with the current paradigm. All new developments under a certain density and distance from an urban core should receive no access to public sewers. Developments that promote sprawl should not get infrastructure subsidized by all taxpayers. Instead, low-density development should be required to utilize technologies such as composting toilets and constructed wetlands to treat water on site as a pre-condition to development within a county or city boundary. If a lowdensity residential or commercial building is surrounded

Cap sprawl and infinite sewer extensions.

by ample land, there is no logical reason it should extend pipes beyond the municipal system’s existing boundaries. The less dense a project, the less access it should have to a centralized sewage system. Encourage Eco-districts with distinct neighborhood-scale waste treatment. Transforming our cities is a block-by-block

process. By designating specific Eco-districts as “bounded conditions” we can slowly change our communities to be more ecologically responsible. These Eco-districts would generate their own energy, handle their own storm water and treat and reuse all of their wastewater. When it’s time to replace or upgrade a given section of a city, an Eco-district can be formed that changes its relationship to water and waste using a mix of decentralized technologies. If we break the problem down into small, achievable goals and tackle waste processing and treatment issues one neighborhood at a time, we can overhaul the entire infrastructure within as little as 30 years. In the course of a single generation, we can effect real change to benefit the planet and its citizens for centuries to come.

it to begin a new cycle of life. We can even enhance the beauty of our communities as we do so. Here is my challenge to everyone to envision and demand from your community leaders: Imagine if every tax dollar that was spent on wastewater infrastructure not only contributed to but enhanced the long-term economic, environmental and social vitality of our communities, so that in the process of treating our wastes we increased biodiversity and soil health, saved money, created more jobs in the community, reduced risks and helped foster a long-term culture of environmental stewardship. Imagine if such a vision were embraced by civic and national leaders in every town in this continent. Over the next 30 years, we’d see a reversal of sewage as a necessary evil to dispose of, to an amenity that promotes life as nature always intended it. The dangers we face by avoiding the problem of industrialscale centralization are far greater than those we flush away.

The Final Flush Human beings are the only creatures that operate under the assumption that waste is refuse. This is a mistake, particularly given all that we now know about preventing water-borne disease. We have the capacity to safely return our waste’s useful components back to the Earth and allow

endnotes

[1] http://plumbing.1800anytyme.com/info/history_of_plumbing.php [2] Many of the older systems in North America (East Coast, primarily) are still based on a combined storm and waste sewer, which is the worst scenario possible. [3] Leaking pipes for both sewer conveyance and even potable water conveyance is staggering, costing untold damage and economic costs. How much water we lose from leaks is unknown since it all happens underground. [4] Although his quote was referencing energy use for heating, the principle is the same. [5] Many politicians love these big projects (often known as “pork”) because they are easy to point at as “solutions” and action on a subject. [6] First developed by biologist Dr. John Todd. [7] The price of sprawl is catching up with communities having to pay for road maintenance and the utilities above and below them. What seemed like a great idea during the 80s and 90s (allowing development to sprawl further and further afield) is now catching up. Developers externalized long-term costs on all of us taxpayers. [8] As reported by the San Francisco Baykeeper. Visit www.baykeeper.

Fall 2009

jason f. mclennan is the CEO of the Cascadia Region Green Building Council. He is the creator of the Living Building Challenge, as well as the author of three books, including The Philosophy of Sustainable Design.

org/work/sewage/spills.html [9] “30,000 Gallons of Raw Sewage Spills Into the Ocean.” (2009). From cbs2.com/local/Ballona.Creek.Venice.2.520299. html?detectflash=false [10] “Report of the Walkerton Inquiry.” (2002). From wvlc. uwaterloo.ca/biology447/modules/module4/Walkerton_Materials/ WI_Summary.pdf [11] “Study Finds Drugs Seeping Into Drinking Water.” (2008). From www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88062858 [12] Cascadia is currently raising funds to complete a detailed LCA of various systems. [13] Or to feed our domesticated herds. [14] Find more information at oikos.com/library/compostingtoilet/. [15] http://www.aquatron.se/ [16] Complete descriptions are available at www.livingmachines.com. [16] http://fiesta.bren.ucsb.edu/~chiapas2/Water%20Management_ files/Greywater%20Wetlands-1.pdf [17] See how the Eco-Tech catalog describes the process at www. ecological-engineering.com/carousel.html.

01.07.10 GREEN BROKER seattle center Olympic and Rainier Rooms 1st ave. N. & Republican

Green Broker is a new and exciting conference designed for the commercial real estate and financial communities. Architects, engineers and planners also will find this full-day conference provides a solid introduction to the fastest growing and most important sector of the building industry: Green Building. Jerry Yudelson, Yudelson Associates

GREEN BuildiNG 101 aNd ThE EcONOmic casE fOR GB

PRESENTED BY

8:30am - 9:45am Jerry has spoken about green building all over the world. His speeches and workshops motivate people to understand the business case for building and developing green. mark Jewell, Founder and President, Real WinWin Inc.

fiNdiNG ValuE aT ThE iNTERsEcTiON Of TENaNTs aNd GREEN 10:00a - 11:30am Mark Jewell founded RealWinWin in early 2001 to provide energy usage optimization services to owners and operators of commercial real estate. Mark has been involved in real estate and energy efficiency for over 30 years. Jason f. mclennan, CEO, Cascadia Region GBC

luNchTimE KEYNOTE

11:45am - 1:00pm Author, award-winning designer and CEO of Cascadia Region Green Building Council, Jason delivers vision and pragmatism, a winning combination for tough economic and environmental times. Theddi Wright chappell, Managing Dir., National Green Building & Sustainability Practice Valuation Services, Cushman & Wakefield chris corps, Principal, Asset Strategies Brandon smith, Chief Operating Officer, Cascadia Region GBC

cOmmuNicaTiNG ThE REal ValuE Of GREEN BuildiNGs 1:15pm - 2:30pm Theddi Wright Chappell and Chris Corps are the principal authors of a groundbreaking study: High Performance Green Building: What’s it Worth? Investigating the Market Value of High Performance Green Buildings. (May 2009). They will discuss their findings and help you to articulate the real value of green buildings. Patricia Rogers, Evergreen Business Capital; christian Gunter, Kennedy Associates; Brandon morgan, Vulcan Real Estate; Tom Parsons, Opus NW; deanna Poling, ShoreBank Pacific; dale mikkelsen, Simon Fraser University

maKiNG GREEN BuildiNG “PENcil”: a ROuNdTaBlE SiGNATuRE SPONSOR

BETTERBRicKs PRESENTiNG SPONSOR

dailY JOuRNal Of cOmmERcE EVERGREEN BusiNEss caPiTal sTOEl RiVEs VulcaN REal EsTaTE SuPPORTiNG SPONSORS

GVa KiddER maThEWs shOREBaNK Pacific WRiGhT RuNsTad & cOmPaNY

2:45pm to 4:00pm Green building represents a rapidly growing niche in the commercial real estate market, with more developers building, and more tenants demanding, green spaces. The panel will provide expert commentary on why they see investing in green as good business, and how you can help articulate the value they see to your clients.

LEARN ABOUT SPONSORSHIP sponsor Green Broker and connect with a dynamic audience of brokers, building managers and other real estate professionals.

Washington State Real Estate Professionals: The conference has been approved by the WA State Real Estate Commission; 7.5 CE clock hours. Please see the following page for more information, registration and sponsorship information.

A decade of transformational leadership. A future of infinite possibility.

Cascadia thanks our Friends and asks you to join us in creating a living future.

LIVING

City of Seattle Department of Planning & Development

PLATINUM

GOLD

SILVER

CERTIFIED

www.cascadiagbc.org

Fall 2009

Cascadia promotes the design, construction and operation of buildings in Alaska, British Columbia, Washington and Oregon that are environmentally responsible, profitable and healthy places to live, work and learn.

Moving Upstream: Progress in the Bioregion and beyond

Living Building Challenge makes its debut in a municipal development ordinance

Bainbridge Island City Council recently became the first municipality in the country to pass a zoning ordinance that encourages and rewards buildings to achieve the Living Building Challenge. The Housing Design Demonstration Projects ordinance (HDDP), a pilot program, is intended to provide more diverse, affordable housing options and smaller footprint homes, as well as support more sustainable building practices. Using a matrix and point system, the program awards financial incentives to projects that provide smaller footprint homes and affordability, innovative site design like community food gardens and biodiversity offsets, and that are built to standards such as the Living Building Challenge, LEED and Built Green. Learn more

Join the ILBI Community Pow-Wow

The International Living Building Institute (ILBI) launched a new benefit for Living Building Community members: the Community Pow-Wow, a medium for fostering a stronger sense of community and knowledge-sharing among Living Building practitioners and enthusiasts. It provides (cyber) space for members to add program-related thoughts and musings, start open-ended conversations and ask questions of peers. Not a member yet of the Community? Join today

generate up to one percent of the 22-story building’s energy needs. Read more

Seattle is #1 and Portland #3 in NRDC Smarter City Rankings

In July, the Natural Resources Defense Council launched its fourth annual “Smarter Cities” rankings, and the Northwest came out on top! Seattle nabbed #1 and Portland #3 for large cities. Eugene, OR; Spokane, WA; and Everett, WA all made the top ten for medium cities. Bellingham, WA; Redmond, WA; and Beaverton, OR made it for small cities. Each city was ranked in categories such as air quality, green building, green space and recycling, among others. Click here to see how your city ranks

Green Power needs more power in British Columbia

According to a recent ruling by the BC Utilities Commission, green power is, “not in the public interest.” Say what? So green jobs, clean energy and a cleaner environment aren’t what the people need? BC citizens should consider correcting BCUC, ask them to please stop putting words in their mouths, and start working towards their best interest. Read more

First urban wind turbines to catch wind in Portland

ASHRAE to encourage net zero with new energy use labeling program

The new Twelve | West Tower in SW Portland recently became adorned in the first small-scale urban wind turbines in the country. The set of four turbines will

Does your building make the energy efficiency grade? The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) can tell you with their

trim tab

new building energy use “report card” program, Building Energy Quotient. The voluntary program rates all types of buildings on a scale of A+ to F (a net zero-energy building would achieve an A+, while any building considered “unsatisfactory” would fail), providing an easily understood metric for owners and tenants to measure up their building with others. According to ASHRAE, the program will be more building inclusive, detailed and aggressive than Energy Star, with the hopes of pushing the market towards net zero. Read more

ABC contractors get their own certification

In June, the Obama Administration put their commitment to the development of clean, renewable energy in writing with its signing of the Statute of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). This joins the U.S. with the 130 signatory nations that will collaborate in working towards a rapid transition to the use of clean, renewal energy on a global scale. Read more

Germany boasts first LEED Platinum Data Center

Associated Builders and Contractors Inc. recently jumped on the certification bandwagon with their new Green Contractor Certification. To comply, firms must meet all prerequisites, at least 12 of the 36 elective items, and fulfill all education and training requirements. The program is intended to recognize the construction industry’s efforts to develop a more sustainable workplace environment and recognize green leaders in the ABC community. Learn more

Frankfurt, Germany is home to Citigroup’s new LEED Platinum rated data center—the first in the world. Designed by Arup Associates, the 230-square-foot facility achieved its rating with such features as a green wall, reverse osmosis water treatment system, recycled and locally sourced building materials, and energy efficiency measures that allow it to run on only 30 percent of the energy typically used by similar facilities. Read more

Who will save Suburbia’s soul?

Cement industry cements in their commitment to CO2 emission reduction

Dwell Magazine and Inhabitat.com announced on August 19 the winners of their inaugural Reburbia design competition—a challenge to redesign American suburbia to more sustainable standards. The competition drew over 400 entries from more than a dozen countries, all tackling the predicaments that present-day suburbia has put so much of the country in. The winning design proposed converting abandoned suburban tract homes into biofilter water treatment plants. Learn more about the competition and the winners

A chance to show off your commitment to FSC wood

The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) is now accepting applications for their annual Designing and Building with FSC Awards, which recognizes those doing their part to create and support a marketplace that promotes sustainable forest management. The competition, which now awards projects in both the residential and commercial categories, is open to any building professional or enthusiast, who is committed to using FSC wood. Last year, Portlandbased Green Hammer, Inc. walked away with first prize. Applications are due October 1, 2009. More info

The Obama Administration signs on renewable energy’s dotted line

Fall 2009

The cement industry is making progress in their efforts to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions, according to a recently released report by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development’s Cement Sustainability Initiative. The world’s leading cement firms showed a 35 percent reduction in their CO2 emissions, despite a 56 percent growth in cement production. Since the cement industry is responsible for around five percent of the world’s CO2 emissions, industry-wide reductions are an integral part to slowing climate change worldwide. Read more

making progress? Do you have a lead on cutting-edge green building progress in the region?

Contact joanna@cascadiagbc.org and put “Moving Upstream News Lead” in the subject line.

Confirm your product is Red List Ready Start the dialogue necessary to grow healthy buildings. Use our Building Materials Questionnaire to plant the seeds. Populate the budding repository of manufacturer data to see it come to life.

Visit the ILBI website to learn more Confused by carbon offsets?

EARN 3 AIA LUs at this session

Learn what you need to know. Living Building Leader presents:

Understanding Carbon Offsets with Stockholm Environment Institute This session and other advanced offerings available for on-demand viewing at www.livingbuildingleader.org

trim tab

Challenging the Regulatory Environment New Ca s cad i a R eport E x amin es the I n ters ectio n of L iving B u i ld i n g s a n d Build in g Cod es

Throughout the United States and Canada, designers and builders are accepting the Living Building Challenge, developing an increasing number of projects in the spirit of self-sustainability. However, antiquated building codes and regulations often stand in the way, preventing such structures from becoming truly self-sustaining. Until these systemic and regulatory barriers are broken down, green projects in general will face slow-downs and Living Buildings in particular will be extremely difficult to complete “to code.” The Cascadia Region Green Building Council recently released a report that addresses these barriers and challenges the industry to demand updated building codes that are consistent with and supportive of the global shift toward green projects. The report, entitled “Code, Regulatory and Systemic Barriers Affecting Living Building Projects,” and authored by David Eisenberg and Sonja Persram, explores various approvals required to design and build leading-edge projects to study the ease or difficulty of such projects to receive regulatory approval. Its authors reviewed data on multiple Living Building projects, reviewed pertinent literature and interviewed industry experts from the public and private sectors as well as non-governmental organizations. Among the report’s findings: It is more difficult for Living Buildings than traditional structures to meet regulatory requirements. Projects that

aim to achieve self-sustainability are designed to surpass the performance requirements demanded by current ratings criteria. In addition, they often are created with the help of innovative – sometimes unique – systems. As a result, Living Buildings rarely fall within existing code parameters. The report asserts that traditional structures, built with no regard for environmental impact, can flow more easily

Fall 2009

through the regulatory funnel.

Given the global shift toward green design and building, existing codes no longer accommodate the new built environment. Instead, they rely on what was believed to be true when they were first written: that there will always be plenty of affordable energy, fresh water, copious building supplies and a stable planetary climate in which to build. We now know otherwise, so the report recommends that our building codes be updated accordingly. Current codes are based on old realities.

We must redefine and realign the notions of safety and risk. Codes and regulations exist to help ensure the safety

of our buildings and to minimize risk to those who inhabit them. The report asks an important question: If we look at the risks inherent in climate change, resource depletion and the persistent use of toxic chemicals, shouldn’t regulatory restrictions adapt to enable and encourage sustainable design? Indeed, the future health of the human species demands that we start by shifting the way we build our communities. The report makes the following key recommendations: • Identify and address regulatory impediments to green building and development. • Create incentives matched with desired goals. • Develop education and advocacy programs. • Accelerate research, testing, development, deployment and monitoring. • Create green zones and designated sustainable development districts with higher integrated performance criteria and regulatory authority. • Facilitate the creation of an integrated regulatory process and a holistic, integrated regulatory system. • Ensure social equity in policies that safeguard public health, safety and welfare.

Book Review:

R e vi ewe d by T hor Peter son

The Upside of Down: Catastrophe, Creativity, and the Renewal of Civilization by Thomas Homer-Dixon

I’ve noticed that many in the green building realm are pattern recognizers, consciously–and sometimes unconsciously– picking up on the interrelatedness of things. They’re the ones that worry most about the manifold ramifications of loading the atmosphere and oceans with carbon. They are more likely to envision the systemic fallout of peak oil on buildings, transportation, local economies, and international trade. And it is from these same folks that I heard most often grave concerns as the global financial crisis brewed, due to a gut feeling that the shock waves would reach distant geographic and financial shores. Thomas Homer-Dixon is also a pattern recognizer and a systems thinker. In The Upside of Down: Catastrophe, Creativity and the Renewal of Civilization (Island Press: 2006), he charts territory ranging from energy availability to forest ecology, drawing parallels and conclusions about the workings of complex systems. Homer-Dixon’s premise is that different types of complex systems (whether natural or anthropomorphic) follow a similar trajectory of growth, climax and decay. Yet we tend to examine systems at a particular point in time, missing this evolution and another commonality: all systems must counter the tendency toward thermodynamic equilibrium: entropy. It takes energy to build, maintain and expand any system. At some point in a system’s life, the returns on adding complexity diminish to zero (and even become negative). At that point, the system becomes unsustainable, and must find additional energy inputs or collapse. Exacerbating this instability is that late-stage systems lose resiliency, and shocks to such brittle systems can spur cascading failures. Homer-Dixon illustrates this concept with an example: latestage consumer-based capitalism. He describes the attempts to counter economic downturn with market mechanisms such as lowered interest rates: But even if efforts to boost consumption do create sufficient demand, they often make instability worse. When interest rates are too low for too long… people and companies tend to borrow recklessly to invest in factories, technology, and other productive capital (which further worsens the problem of too much productive capacity) and to speculate on assets like real estate, stocks, and bonds. Returns on capital fall and prices of equities soar far above realistic levels. Such investment and asset bubbles always pop…. The potential result: an economic crash that leads to a severe credit crunch as investors and speculators withdraw from the marketplace (p. 200). Written in 2006, this passage foreshadows 2008. Couple this understanding of economic systems with Homer-Dixon’s description of the astounding amounts of energy we use to

trim tab

maintain our current system, and this reader is convinced that we are living history, now.

urban areas to act as emergency centers and test cases for further building design enhancements.

Homer-Dixon doesn’t paint a hopeful picture of the future. In fact, he coins the term catagenesis—the creative renewal of technologies, institutions, and societies in the aftermath of a breakdown—and presents a road map that points largely in that direction. He argues that efforts to regulate complex systems usually create additional unintended consequences; in fact, such ham-handed interventions in the system can actually “produce the conditions for catastrophe” (p. 233). In general, he’s telling us to buckle up, we’re in for a bumpy ride.

As designers and builders, we need to understand that our buildings are simply one system within a nested hierarchy (again, spanning the social, environmental and economic realms). The Upside of Down sketches out that larger system we’re all currently inhabiting. The revolutionary ideas we come up with if we’re able to conceive the inconceivable will help form the bridge to renewal.

What does this mean for building design and construction? Green building teaches us to design our built environment to be climate responsive, and most of us tend to take that to mean responsive to “sun, wind and light,” in the words of G.Z. Brown. While this definition is critical, it’s far too narrow. Our buildings need to be able to respond to larger systemic stressors: the socio-political-economic climate. We are learning to design our buildings to capture prevailing breezes or soak up incident solar energy, or even withstand a hurricane or earthquake. But what design approaches will help our buildings, neighborhoods and cities withstand economic shocks and social dislocation? One look at Detroit or Florida affirms that we’re certainly not there yet. Homer-Dixon asserts: When we’re in denial, we can’t think about the various paths that we might take into the future. Nor can we prepare to take the best path when the opportunity arises. Radically different futures become literally inconceivable…. To survive, let alone prosper, in our new and more dangerous world, we need to open our minds to the possibility of fundamental change in our lives (p. 219). Like Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, Homer-Dixon is pointing out that our reality is a construct, and in order to open ourselves to the tectonic changes on the horizon, we must rethink everything, everywhere. If we’re to face major economic, social, and environmental dislocations, our buildings must exhibit far greater resiliency. Alex Wilson’s (Environmental Building News) concept of passive survivability for buildings fits nicely into this picture. We need buildings that are habitable even during periods of (sometimes extended) disconnection from electrical, water, and sewer services. The Living Building Challenge is another key component. At the very least, we need a baseline number of such buildings scattered throughout

Fall 2009

Our services will be invaluable.

Thor Peterson is principal of Synthesis Consultants, a Seattle-based green building consultancy. He can be reached at thor@synthesisconsultants. com.

Cascadia proudly recognizes these pioneering Lifetime Members: Clark Brockman Donald Davies Mark Frankel Dennis Wilde

To learn more about Cascadia’s Lifetime Membership program, contact Sarah Costello today: 503.228.5533 ext 1# sarah@cascadiagbc.org

Cascadia Region Green Building Council www.cascadiagbc.org

Event Calendar: September - November 2009 USGBC and CaGBC workshops hosted by Cascadia LEED Canada for New Construction Vancouver, BC – 9/23 LEED Canada for Commercial Interiors Kelowna, BC – 9/29 LEED Canada Core Concepts & Strategies Vancouver, BC – 10/08 LEED Canada for Commercial Interiors Victoria, BC – 10/14 LEED Core Concepts and Strategies Portland, OR – 10/14 LEED Canada for Homes Vancouver, BC – 10/27 LEED Canada for Contractors Vancouver, BC – 10/30 LEED Canada Core Concepts & Strategies Victoria, BC – 11/02 LEED Canada for New Construction Victoria, BC – 11/04 LEED for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance Vancouver, BC – 11/17 LEED Canada for Contractors Victoria, BC – 11/18 LEED Canada for Commercial Interiors Vancouver, BC – 11/25

Workshops presented by Cascadia Green Building and the Building Code Hood River, OR – 9/22 Hillsboro, OR – 9/23 Build it LEED for Contractors Eugene, OR – 11/19

Transformational Lecture Series John Reynolds Dale Mikkelson Clark Brockman Sim Van der Ryn Peter Clegg

Anchorage, AK – 9/16 Victoria, BC – 10/21 Kelowna, BC – 10/22 Tacoma, WA – 10/22 Seattle, WA – 10/22 Vancouver, BC – 12/08 Portland, OR – 12/09 Seattle, WA – 12/10

Other Events Green Skyline Throughout British Columbia – 9/25 and 9/27 NW Ductless Heat Pump Workshop – hosted by Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance Portland, OR – 9/30 Central Oregon Green + Solar Home Tour Bend, OR – 10/03 Greenbuild 2009 – hosted by USGBC Phoenix, AZ – 11/11-11/13

LEED for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance Victoria, BC – 11/25 LEED Canada for Contractors Burnaby, BC – 11/26

Workshops, lectures and other opportunities throughout the bioregion For complete details, please visit our calendar at www.cascadiagbc.org/calendar trim tab

SAVE THE DATE LIVING FUTURE 2010 MAY 5-7 SEATTLE WASHINGTON “Coming away from this conference, I’m driven to continue to expand the horizons of me and my firm to look beyond LEED, realizing that it’s never too early to try to design for full sustainability.”

BUILDING HOPE, RE-VALUING COMMUNITY www.cascadiagbc.org/living-future/10

CLICK HERE TO

MAY 5-7 2010 SEAT

LIVING FUT

THE WESTIN SEATTLE 1900 Fifth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101

JAMES HOWARD KUNSTLER

Urban Planning Expert, Social Critic, Author, Journalist

Pliny Fisk III

Co-Director, Center for Maximum Potential Building Systems

The LIving Future 09 Unconference in the words of the attendees “One of the best conferences I’ve been to. Nice size, well organized, and FUN.” “The lectures were inspiring; my batteries have been recharged. But the most valuable were the conversations I had between sessions. I had an opportunity to talk with all kinds of people doing all kinds of great work. These conversations are the heart of a good conference.” “I loved the attitude of the speakers and participants. There was positivity and a genuine desire to keep improving by analyzing what isn’t working and seeking input on how to make buildings work for people.” “This conference had the best plenary sessions of any conference I’ve been to.”

FORWARD TO FRIENDS:

LIKE WHAT YOU SEE?

Forward this to a friend and have them sign up for Trim Tab ADVERTISE:

WANT TO REACH NEARLY 20,000 LEADING PRACTITIONERS? Contact us to advertise in the next issue!

Fall 2009