Eco Design + Living

Ok, so I have a confession about this blog. I believe I have unintentionally mislead searchers and my readers into believing this blog was going to provide ideas for designing a green home or the answers to what green products to purchase to ease one’s guilty eco-conscience. If you landed here looking for tidbits about what car to drive, household cleaners to use, or clothes to wear - I apologize - but only for misleading, not for the content of the blog.

Continue reading Confessions of a Sustainologist

Having just returned from Prescott College with a degree in Sustainable Community Development in hand, I have been reflecting on what all this means. By “all this” I mean my career path, my community, and the word, sustainability. For simplicities sake, when previously asked what I was getting my degree in, I would blurt out the title, then quickly follow up with “you know, green building.” It’s true that at Prescott College, the curriculum is self designed and though I was getting my degree in Sustainable Community Development, my studies were bent toward green building and design, since I’m a practicing residential designer. Makes perfect sense.

The reality is that green building and “going green” are not synonymous with sustainability. They are an element of sustainability, but they are not the defining feature. I learned this in my first course at Prescott, Critical Issues and Applications. Instinctively, I knew this to be true, but I didn’t yet have the language or coherent thoughts to express the difference. Oddly enough, over the next two years, I still didn’t have the language (or chose to disregard) to define what I studied. I often pretended that it was something other than what it really was.

I share with most Americans a common affliction - the ability to define who I am for the rest of the world to sum up in simple, understandable terms, like one word, e.g., “I’m a ________.” For the last fourteen years I have been a residential designer. This has usually drawn blank stares and then a typical response, “oh, you design interiors.” No, in fact, I don’t. Then comes the long explanation that either draws more blank stares, disinterest, or suspicion. Occasionally, I am understood. By definition, I am an architect. By Florida law, because I am not licensed, I am not allowed to use any variation of the word ‘architect’ or ‘architecture’ to describe myself or what I do. That’s fine, I have the utmost respect for my fellow architect peers that went through traditional means to acquire their career title. Unfortunately, the title of residential designer, leaves people confused and disappointed because we are so used to thinking in absolute, specialist, simplified terms. But in reality, how many of us can really describe our livelihood in one or two words?

Add to residential designer the fact that I went back to school, not to earn a degree in architecture, but a degree in sustainable community development and what word comes to mind? Confusion? After reading Stephen Kellert’s book, Building for Life, I claimed for myself a term he used in the book to describe a new professional he would like to see emerge that combines the natural and built environments, the environmental restorative designer. Makes sense to me.

I even tried calling myself a permaculturist for a brief stint. I found that even permaculturist, Toby Hemenway, refers to permaculture as ecological design in his book Gaia’s Garden, in order to be inclusive and understood. A good and concerned friend says that the word permaculture sounds unhip, uncool, and like, what is it? 

Then I came home from Prescott, with degree in hand, remember? On my travels, I picked up a copy of Vandana Shiva’s book, Stolen Harvest and in the book, she is described as an advocate for sustainable community development and her formal education is as scientist. It finally dawned on me that I was doing myself and others around me, a great disservice by not completely owning up to my degree and educating others about sustainability. By defining myself as a residential designer who has a keen interest in green design, I miss the opportunity to be fulfilled in my life’s work. If I truly want to continue designing housing that is mostly the status quo with a few green bells and whistles, then I can continue as I have all along. If I want to work on environmental and humanitarian issues, then I must embrace this thing called sustainability. What does this make me now? A sustainologist perhaps. Confused yet?

According to the Brundtland Report, sustainable development is defined as development that ”meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

Bill Mollison and David Holmgren claim that permaculture goes beyond sustainability by caring for humans, caring for the earth, acknowledging that every being has intrinsic value, and sharing the surplus.

From Wikiedia: Sustainability, in a broad sense, is the capacity to endure. In ecology the word describes how biological systems remain diverse and productive over time. For humans it is the potential for long-term improvements in well being, which in turn depend on the well being of the natural world and the responsible use of natural resources.

The First Nation Iroquois had their own definition of sustainability that considers and accounts for seven future generations. “In every deliberation, we must consider the impact on the seventh generation… even if it requires having skin as thick as the bark of a pine.” –great Law of the Iroquois

At Prescott College, the Sustainable Community Development program, created by Terril Shorb is defined by what he calls the butterfly curriculum, which consists of four areas of focus; natural history, appropriate technologies (this is where green building is addressed), spirituality and psychology, and arts and education. The butterfly is the representative symbol because of the four lobes of her wings and her ability set world changing events into action by the mere flutter of her wings.

So, the time has come to stop pretending that designing a green home somehow equates to creating a more environmentally and socially just world. It’s a piece of the puzzle, but not the whole picture. It’s about the way we live and every day decisions we make. Every choice is the opportunity to create sustainable communities or further push society down a path of uncomfortable change and destruction. In the interim, I continue to make a living as best evolved toward less harm as possible, but in the continuum, deep systemic changes are taking root.

Live well.

Chandra

Recently, on Eco Design + Living and SoWal, I asked readers to share some of the things they are doing to decrease their ecological footprint. Read about it here. Some of you may be wondering what an ecological footprint is and how it’s calculated. For those who already know, I encourage you to take the test again over a period of time to see a comparison. For those wanting to be in the know, an ecological footprint is the amount of natural resources, calculated as an area, it takes to sustain a person. These natural resources are the products of our ecosystem that we consume, including the resources needed to take care of our waste. Natural resources are regenerative, though because of the growth of the world’s population and the desire for all people to raise their standard of living (amount of consumption) to the level of developed countries, the world is in danger of overshoot. What this means is that humans are using more resources than the planet can regenerate in a meaningful time. Wastes accumulate; soil, oil, and water decline; and species are pushed to the brink of extinction.

These natural resources are the underlying foundation of our economy (the sale of goods and services derived from natural resources) that is showing signs of serious strain. Some believe we are experiencing a recession that has finally hit bottom and we’re now poised for the growth machine to kick in. While I don’t doubt that we will have fits and starts over the years to come, we are facing an undeniable truth - we are bumping up against the natural limitations to growth, ecosystem overload, a planet full of humans with endless needs and desires. As soon as growth gets going again and investors speculate on expanding growth, we’ll soon face higher energy costs. Then comes the increase in food prices, as nitrogen becomes more expensive. As things become more expensive, life becomes less affordable, and so forth and so on, like a see saw, we move up the growth ladder, then we get knocked back down.

How can we learn to do things differently? to desire a different outcome? to behave differently and have different expectations? What if we could prosper without continuous growth? What does it mean to prosper? Does this mean you have to get rid of your iPhone? I say “you” because I don’t have an iPhone. Never mind.

Back to the Ecological Footprint quiz. My personal continual goal is to reduce my ecological footprint and become more of a producer instead of a consumer. Just for fun, I dragged up an older post from sustainingsowal.wordpress.com about my ecological footprint. Read below, if you’re so inclined. Since then, I have taken the quiz several times and once as an exercise in an Ecological Economics course. The instructor just so happened to be the friend of Mathis Wackernagel, the developer of the calculation method of the ecological footprint. The number one complaint of the students in the course was their frustration at feeling like they were high on the eco-friendly scale, only to discover that their footprints weren’t drastically different from their non-recycling, fast food eating, SUV driving, plastic bag using peers.

Why not so different? It’s the big things, not the little things that make a difference. My dear friend, Christian Wagley has explained and made this all too clear to me over the last few years. It doesn’t mean a hill of beans if you use cloth bags, if you still drive your gas guzzling car all over town. Are you a do-gooder, recycling that evil plastic cup? Think again. If you are a regular meat eater, you’re having more negative impact on the planet than a few plastic cups. That’s why unless we make fundamental changes to the way we live, our ecological footprint barely budges. Want to make an impact? Stop eating meat and switch to a vegetarian diet. Take in a roommate or family member. More people under the same roof, sharing resources, lessens your impact on the planet. Give up your car. Bike, walk, or take public transportation. Stop flying. One trip across the country by plane can undo all the little good things you do in a year. Think I’m kidding? Think again. Take the test and see for yourself. In the meantime, read one of my earlier posts on the subject. It’s entertaining. On a more positive note, my friend Christian also reminds me that it’s the execution of the little things we do that brings us to awareness and capability of the bigger things. Live well! Chandra

I’ve been avoiding taking the Ecological Footprintquiz due to the fact that living in the United States inherently means my footprint is grossly disproportionate to other struggling souls in developing nations.  It’s just another reminder of the excesses we take for granted and actually declare “necessities” in our privileged society.  The other reason for my personal avoidance of the test is because I find the simple, brief, watered down test, robs one of the opportunity to somewhat redeem themselves by omitting the details of ones personal conservation efforts.  On the other hand, I could take the expanded, more thorough test, which asks questions like, “how many pounds of vegetables do you eat a week?”  Since I suffer, like most Americans, from ISAS (internetshort attention span), I’ll have to save that test for another day, say when I have a produce scale handy.

None the less, I decided it was time to take the plunge and face up to my overconsumptive self and take the abbreviated quiz.  I took two quizzes to compare the results, then realized they were linked to the same site.  The results were as expected, sort of.

Taken from Earth Day Network

Category acres: food 4.7, mobility 1, shelter 4.2, good/services 3.5  total footprint 13

In comparison, the average ecological footprint in your country is 24 acres per person.  Worldwide, there exist 4.5 biologically productive acres per person.

If everyone lived like you, we would need 3 planets.

…and from Redefining Progress

Your Ecological Footprint is:  

32.68 Global Hectares

Global Average Footprint: 21 global hectares

Sustainable Footprint: 15 global hectares

According to my handy dandy Pocket Ref guide, my 32.68 global hectares equates to 80.75 acres.  There seems to be some discrepancy between the two quizzes that are actually from the same source.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m an advocate for reducing our ecological footprints and I think such quizzes can be educational, though I think there is inherent danger in providing these quizzes to the average person that has very little knowledge of what constitutes an ecological footprint and the need to reduce it.  For instance, if someone were to take this basic quiz, which doesn’t appear to take into account the fact that someone has diligently changed all their appliances to Energy Star or switched out all their bulbs for CFL’s, they may at first glance at the results be quite put out.  They may think to themselves, “Even with the efforts I’ve made, it would still take 3 planets to sustain everyone globally at my current consumption.  Hmmm…3 planets, that’s just a monumental thought beyond the scope of what I can personally affect.” 

What we really need, which may already exist, are smaller, incremental measures of our advances toward sustainability.  Something that the average person can get their arms around and really identify with, like getting on the scale and realizing you lost 3 pounds.  Something more in line with our short attention spans.

Well, I know I’ll be diligently working on reducing my footprint in 2007 and there after.  So, when you see me at For the Health Of It with my purple reusable bags, or you see my yard has transformed into an edible oasis, or I show up to a meeting on my bike a bit bedraggled, you’ll know why.

From the perspective of Chandra F. Hartman. Take it or leave it.