Download QA Built Environment Session

Sustainable Communities Workshop
December 18, 2013
The Future of the Built Environment:
Questions and Answers
Due to time limitations, the Q&A for the panelists of the Future of the Built Environment Session had to
be cancelled. Below are responses from the panelists to some of the written questions that were
received from the audience. Thank you to Sean Williams and Tim Rumage for providing answers after
the fact! i
Sean Williams
Q: How does the challenge measure neighborhood? Can you explain more- i.e. I live in a
neighborhood but don’t know any of my neighbors. Is that kind of human connection important
in the Living Building Challenge?
A: It does measure neighborhoods. One of the imperatives in the site petal is car free living, this is
not only or the pollution cars produce but the social connection that we need as a society.
Q: Who are the architects in Florida who are designing 50-100 year structures to meet/ adapt to
changing climate over 50-100 years?
A: Mostly large firms with government or institutional clients. Smaller firms are not really able to
build this into their client fees or lexicon. It has always been a struggle for smaller firms, maybe too
many things to juggle with too few resources. Great question, I am inspired to find a project to
pursue this with.
Q&A: Future of the Built Environment Panel
Page 1
Q: What are the particular features of adaptive buildings?
A: Tough question, happy clients and neighbors? The features should not be anything in particularly
different than what you see today. Probably would not use building techniques from the upper part
of North America.
Q: How was the national expansion funded?
A: I am looking into any grants or events that helped the Living Building the Living Building
Challenge expand but I presume it was ambassadors like me advocating for something better.
Tim Rumage
Q: What are examples of harnessing CO2?
A: There are two that I really like, and neither are the ones most commonly mentioned. Carbon
sequestration is the model that has the greatest industry and governmental focus. In this format
you build a large infrastructure unit (lots of pipes and pumps and tunnels) with the aim of storing
the CO2 underground. It is a very expensive and untested solution and is being fought because of
the price tag.
My first favorite is algae farms – associated with power plants. Here the CO2 from the plant’s
towers are pumped through bags of algae that convert the CO2 into biomass. The algae can then be
harvested and used to make biodiesel fuels, feedstock for animals, protein supplements for people,
organic fertilizer, or substitute for other oil-sourced products (plastic, pharmaceuticals, etc.). The
major benefit is that rather than being an additional cost to the power plant’s operation, the algae
becomes a product for sale and thus an additional revenue stream for the power plant. Also, this
option does not require the operation of the power plant to be changed. The other benefit is that
the algae can grow so quickly that you can begin harvesting the algae in a few days.
Algae farms work great for stationary structures – so what to do about mobile sources. Many cities
(Chicago, Boston, Minneapolis, Tokyo) and the EU have been promoting green roofs and living walls.
These planted structures absorb CO2, clean rain water, reduce particulate matter in the air, reduce
the heat island effect, and promote vertical airflow in the city.
Q: The latest thread in the climate change conversation I keep hearing about is “geo-engineering.”
Do you think we can count on this as our “hail Mary” solution to save ourselves from ourselves?
A: I am not a big proponent of “geo-engineering” especially the way it is currently discussed. Two
frequent geo-engineering models are: 1) add iron to the ocean to promote algae growth and have
the increased amount of algae take up excess CO2, and 2) build a system of towers that could
Q&A: Future of the Built Environment Panel
Page 2
release sulfides into the upper atmosphere to block sunlight and thus reduce the amount of heat
that could be captured by CO2. Both of these suggestions have ‘merit’ in that iron can be a limiting
mineral in the growth of algae, and the eruptions of the volcanoes – that release sulfides into the
atmosphere – does promote a temporary drop in temperature.
But neither of these suggested applications looks at the full range of potential impacts. I have not
seen a study that explains how the iron is mined, processed and delivered in a way that does not
add to other pollution loads and habitat problems. Also, there is the reality that algae uptake
oxygen at night that could have implications for the generation, or expansion, of “dead-zones” in
the ocean.
Similarly, the plan to reduce heating impacts by reducing sunlight through sulfide release does not
fully examine the implications of generating and operating the towers needed, nor does it take into
account the impact that reduced solar energy and availability could have on other natural and
human systems from habitats to weather to agriculture to energy.
Q: Let’s say the world unanimously agrees to get rid of all CO2 and fossil fuels tomorrow. What
will sea level rise look like in 2030 with this scenario?
A: Reducing the risk, or slowing the timeline of sea level rise is an active process. There are really
two key components in the questions asked. The first is what happens if we stop the input side of
the process and do not release any more anthropogenic CO2. If all we do is stop, then the practical
effect is that we see no functional change in sea level rise projections for the next several decades.
Jason Box (Ohio State glaciologist) estimates that we have 70 years of sea level rise “baked into the
system”. That’s because it can take two or more decades (the timeline is shrinking) for CO2 get to a
position in the atmosphere where it can contribute to climate change and sea level rise.
Functionally this means that the global warming and sea level rise seen to date is from pre 1995 CO2
releases.
As such, we have to do two things – one is stop the addition of anthropogenic CO2 into the
atmosphere and the second is to actually find ways to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
Q: Will any of Sarasota County be left in 2030 in the worst/ best case scenarios of sea level rise?
A: Yes, physically there will be many parts of Sarasota left with the first many feet of sea level rise.
My concern is that the economy – as we know it - will have left with the first several inches to foot
of sea level rise. A great deal of our economy is tourism based on beach related activities, which are
at serious risk even under the most conservative estimates of sea level rise. Then there are impacts
on the housing market. Insurance rates will continue to climb as coastal property values continue to
decline. The decline in beach tourism and property values could have a serious impact on the
budgets of Sarasota County and its cities and communities. And the loss of those revenue streams
when coupled with the changes in the coastline could seriously impact the quality of life and the
vitality/viability of the Sarasota Community.
Q&A: Future of the Built Environment Panel
Page 3
Q: Population 30 billion in 2050. I don’t believe this population will ever hit this mark just
because of sustainability will not allow it. Millions will die of water/ food shortages alone.
A: I do not remember estimating human population at 30 billion in 2050. If I did, I apologize for such
an error. The highest ‘realistic’ estimate I am aware of is 10 billion by 2045-2050. Even that number
is problematic with multiple issues exacerbated and magnified by climate change and sea level rise.
The changes in weather patterns will have a huge impact on agriculture, and sea-level rise and storm
damage will displace millions of people that could easily swamp the ability of receiving countries to
meet the increased demand. The QDR (Quarterly Defense Review) see climate change as a “threat
multiplier.” As such, one would think that countries would take the issue seriously if only in the
name of national security.
Q: Why was ice melting not looked at, predicted, projected, talked about 50 years ago? If it was,
what do those projections look like compared to actual elevations?
A: Looking back at 1963 we see a lack of capability, a lack of public awareness and some issues of
cold war secrecy. In 1963, we were at the end of the Mercury Space Program and Landsat was not
launched until 1970 – so we had a lack of eyes in the sky to see the issue. While the Nautilus (SSN571) had made its trans Arctic Ocean voyage several years earlier (1958), sea ice thickness data was
considered a national secret. We did not want the Russians to know where the ice was thin enough
to allow a submarine to surface. So while our nuclear submarines kept very good data, it would be
decades before it was available to the scientific community. Also, the ‘60s was pre-clean air act. So
smog was a big consideration, as were sulfide aerosols. In the popular press the discussion was that
sunlight was going to be reflected back into the upper atmosphere resulting in the cooling of the
earth and the generation of a mini-ice age. While there were scientists who studied this and
understood the potential, the scientific community on the whole was looking at the growth in SO2
release and seeing that as the larger danger.
But as CO2 and the potential for global warming and sea-level rise became the focus, one had the
well funded public outcry from climate change deniers/ climate skeptics doing their best to argue
against the risks and realities of climate change – and doing so very effectively in the public press.
As a result, climate change became too much of a political issue in the US to receive the type of
policy review and support it really needed. The result is that the US is far behind many other
countries in dealing with the implications of sea level rise, and even many states have yet to take on
the issue. In fact, some states have outlawed the use of the terms related to climate change and sea
level rise in state legislation and regulations. It is tough to solve a problem if you are not allowed to
mention it.
Q&A: Future of the Built Environment Panel
Page 4
Q: Do you think the present generation of under 18 year olds will believe in climate change
enough to impact political and financial policies toward sustainability, particularly renewable
energy?
A: As my students remind me, the question most of them have is not whether they believe in
climate change, but why don’t their parents, business leaders, and politicians believe in climate
change. Through the CUMULUS organization, I have the opportunity to meet with a variety of
people from Europe, Asia, Latin America, and Africa and their position is why don’t Americans
(especially white males over 40) believe in climate change.
And I am quite confident that my students, and most individuals who are under 22 today, will
believe in Climate Change because they are going to live in it, and hopefully through it. They are the
generation of mitigation and adaptation. The baby boomers are the last of the generations that
could avoid climate change – or at least minimizing its most devastating effects.
Q: Should we be supporting countries, paying them to keep their natural resources intact to help
reduce CO2 levels? E.g. rain forests in South America
A: We should be, and in fact we have agreed to do that in a climate change treaty. But most of the
developed nations have not yet met their agreed to financial goals and other treaty obligations.
So while we should be helping other countries, the biggest changes we could make are in tax law
and financial policies. If we eliminated all direct and indirect subsidies for energy (fossil fuel and
alternative) so that we actually paid the ‘true’ cost of energy, that would generate support for new
means of transportation, urban design, mass and multiple transit options, new building codes on
insulation, increased efficiency in appliances (and I would suggest that we use the money that used
to go to the subsidies then go to citizens to help them fund the impact of transition).
In financial policies (loans, insurance, investment), we need companies to include the environmental
costs/impacts of their processes and products in their financial statements (profit and loss) so that
we have a more accurate way to evaluate their goods and services. If we want to go wild, we could
require companies to include their social costs as well. If sustainability is about ecology, society and
economy, then let’s include all three aspects into the price of goods and services. It would reduce
pollution, cause companies to take a long tern view of their investment strategies, and support
human dignity.
i
The questions listed are copied directly from the cards submitted by attendees and not edited for content.
Similarly, the responses provided here are the opinions of the presenters only and not representative of the
positions of the Workshop’s organizing partners. This document is intended to replace the real-time Question and
Answer period that would have occurred had it not been cancelled in order to keep the workshop on schedule.
Questions about the content should be directed to the panelists.
Q&A: Future of the Built Environment Panel
Page 5