Trash

Since I love talking about trash so much (I was considering being Oscar the Grouch for Halloween), let me add another perspective to a topic I brought up before that we discussed briefly. A report issue by the RCBC (recycling council of British Columbia), recently came to the conclusion that waste-to-energy efforts are not helping in achieving the end goal of reducing waste from landfills. This was discussed before when we were talking about such facilities fighting over waste. Why create a demand for waste?

http://www.rcbc.bc.ca/documents/resources/policypaper_101024_wteoption.pdf

One topic that I think deserves more focus is one mentioned in Cradel to Cradel (and reiterated by Annie Lonnox) which is the idea that everything (both product and packaging) should be designed specifically not only for durability but also deisgned specifically to be recycled. Most product unfortunately were not designed to be burned, which is the princible of waste-to-energy via combustion (either raw material or methane). This emits harmful toxins into the air and creates a demand for waste. Bad bad bad.

One thing I am trying to push at work is recyclable packaging. Certain things, like fancy kitchen cabinets, for example, are shipped with cardboard corner and edge protectors, then wrapped in plastic fiber bands, then wrapped in thick plastic shrink wrap. Certain things to focus on are reducing such plastics, and definately limiting styrofoams. I will keep you all posted with developments I observe to be relevant.

Piezometrics

Let me just comment in terms of the physics of dance floor energy. Since piezometrics is in essence using a cushion to harness energy from the source, when energy is absorbed from human contact with the floor, it takes more energy to maneuver. The same principle applies when trying to run in the sand as opposed to the asphalt (takes much more effort because the sand absorbs your mechanical energy). In this sense, breakdancers may not appreciate this technology as their moves require the maximum thrust off of a solid surface. I would imagine that walking from one end of a long room to another along a piezometric floor would leave somebody more winded than with a hard solid floor. On the other hand, this would make somebody burn more calories per distance walked, which could be a good thing as well.

I guess this still classifies as using a renewable source, even though it is indirectly powered by redbull & vodka, which I wish was renewable...

Crude Reality

I realize this viewpoint does not represent the majority of the class, but I bring it up not to be a devil advocate but because I think it holds some weight and atleast deserves discussion. Plus the better you understand it, the better you can argue against it (which I obviously welcome).

I would like to follow up my comments about energy independence as it relates to alleviating geo-political tensions and promoting local economy. Let me quickly summarize my point that within the next 50 years or so, as we make the transition to a majority of renewable resources, as we are weaning ourselves off fossil fuels (but still using them nonetheless), the resources we do use should be our own (or atleast a bigger portion than as of current). I would encourage you all to browse the EIA, as there is a buttload of relevant info. Let me direct you to three charts in particular relating to crude oil:

The amount of crude oil we import, by country:
"http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_a.htm"

The amount of crude oil USA produces:
"http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbbl_a.htm"

The amount of crude oil USA currently has in reserves:
"http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_pres_a_EPC0_R01_mmbbl_a.htm"
"http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/rcrr01nus_1a.htm"

As a summary, we annually import about a 5 billion barrels, we produce 2 billion, hence we use 7 billion. We currently have 20 billion in reserves that fluctuates as we use some and find more (but generally decreases since the 70s, see second chart from reserves). So if we use half a billion barrels more domestic crude annually than as of current (i.e. from Alaska), that would be enough to offset all of Saudi Arabia, which is the biggest single country source after Canada and Mexico. Yes, that will deplete our reserve faster, but again, this is in terms of keeping us domestic during our transition period.

Now, comment away!....

Independence

It is agreed that tackling a vast array of conflicts requires clear prioritization, but the debate comes when determining what rank is given to each issue. It must be recognized that in the United State’s current status as a world leader, the principle means of our influence (good or bad), is our economic machine. The US cannot fight unemployment, develop new technology, offer relief to foreign nations, fight for sustainable initiatives, operate an already complex array of government services and also provide the opportunity for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness if the economy continues to suffer for a prolonged period of time. This applies to the private sector as well. Every major functioning mechanism in this country depends on borrowing money in one way or another, and if credit markets are frozen, it will continue to have a rippling effect on everything. Even sectors that are considered to be relatively immune, such as healthcare, cannot operate at full potential unless our economy is somewhat stable. My generation has taken this for granted.

 If major short term concerns can be adequately addressed, only then it is feasible to focus on long term concerns, like reducing debt, assuring services to future generations, and of course preserving our physical global environment. It would be imprudent to focus on the far-future while neglecting the present and near-future nightmares. Among the many current environmental concerns, global warming is discussed far more than any other environmental issue (even more than the millions of yearly deaths due to lack of clean water for drinking or irrigation). Therefore it will be most relevant if I comment on this as well.

What both presidential candidates have failed to display, and what most politicians are always reluctant to display, is the exact implementation of their strategies and how they can be congruent to overwhelming short term concerns. All we hear are the long-term goals, but what of the exact implementation strategies, incentives and penalties. The US congress failed to pass a bill that cut CO₂ emissions by 66% by 2050. Obama’s goals are close to 80% reduction from 1990 levels, McCain’s are close to 60% reduction. Obama speaks of global forums and exporting technologies to developing countries while McCain meanders about fuel standards and tax credits. Both preach cap-and-trade. Now prove how and why this can be economically viable. 

Some extent of regulation is necessary, but it can only be truly effective when done in harmony with the key principle of capitalism: incentive. Unfortunately, the most powerful incentive that we as humans can grasp is financial. However that can be used as a valuable tool. Rather than saying, “by the year 20xx, we need to reduce CO₂ emissions by x%, and I support this and that policy,” and then end the discussion there (which in all three debates both candidates have done), how about layout a detailed timetable of controlled emission reduction of given industries, saying that the standards are tightened by a certain percent each year, and that economic incentives (such as tax rebates) are awarded at an exponential rate by achieving above and beyond the standards, and that penalties should be imposed for not meeting standards. Emission standards should be carefully determined by industry experts as to not impose unreasonable goals that will cripple a given economy. It’s easy to say, they should suffer if they can’t comply, and it’s easy to say, it will be better for our environment if the price of gas triples and people can’t drive anymore, but the fact of the matter is that there are serious short term implications to umbrella standards that could be far more devastating than lowering the sea level a couple centimeters. Just like we gradually got to this point over several decades, we need to wean ourselves back down to healthier emissions over several decades, in a precise and attainable way.

In light of the current U.S. economic standing, energy independence should be given as much weight as renewable resources. Independence is crucial for strengthening the dollar and eliminating geo-political stresses, both of which has been devastating in recent years. However we can’t just stop burning coal and using oil altogether. If that switch were flipped, there would be mass economic chaos. The maximum possible rate of making the transition to purely renewable resources absolutely cannot be attained rapidly enough for us to not have to use the two most powerful forms of energy we are capable of harnessing: fossil fuels and nuclear power. Since we must use these sources during that transition period, why not use what is local. We need to set a long term time table of making the two fold transition of first become energy independent, and then becoming 100% renewable. As idealistic as it sounds, we cannot jump straight to the end without using the stepping stones in between, especially not in our current economic condition.

Lead in the Air

Along the same theme from the WSJ article of how curbing GHG will be effected by the financial crisis, limits to other emissions are raising the same question (do companies lower emissions, or do they go out of business), let's see how the industry that produces lead emission will adapt.

EPA just lowered the limit substantially, and one industry that will have to figure something out quick is trash incineration. No more mass burning to save space, but rather change the focus to better sorting before hand, or harnessing emissions during the process? Incineration is also a main component used in certain waste-to-energy plants, so I'm interested to see how the industry will adapt.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/10/16/epa.lead.air.standard.ap/index.html

Bailout the Bicycles

Apparently the Federal Bailout Bill has some nice little tidbits attached, such as employers being able to claim a $20/month/biker tax relief, passed down to the biking employee via fringe benefits. Now, a couple extra Jacksons in the wallet isn't going to ease much pain, it actually might not even be worth the extra work required to prove qualification, but it's definitely a pedal in the right direction.

Go to page 205:

http://senateconservatives.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/bailouttext.pdf

It goes without saying but I will say it anyway: using cycling for transportation can save you money regardless, even if you already use an thrifty means, like the subway or bus system.

Now all we need are more bike parking spots, tire pumping stations, and severe prosecution for people who park or open their car doors into bike traffic lanes.

A Bike Lane aint a Bike Lane if...

...if you can't bike in it!  Let me just say, I do commend the efforts of city planners and the cooperation of the DOT to paint green bike lanes on Broadway and other streets throughout the city. HOWEVER, why would you add another space in between the bike lane and the traffic lane with tables and benches for people to occupy? That forces people to walk through the bike lane. ARRRGHHHHHH! Why!?!? Look at this!

Why not just put the seating area next to the sidewalk where the pedestrians belong, not sandwiched between two moving lanes? Did anybody think this through? I almost took out like 8 people in a 3 block span. I ended up just using the road. For this lane: thanks, but no thanks.

CWM

I'm interested in discovering the economics of building relevant regional recycling facilities where there is a market for them, specifically in terms of, allowing a large amount of waste producers to have a venue for their own waste. A public database could be created, of waste producers, what type of waste they produce, and their location (GIS style), that could assist in locating markets for anything, including polystyrene. This is no different from old fashioned market research, but it applies to a relatively newer market and technology. My expertise right now is C&D waste so I don't know much about plastic recycling (and other MSW), but I hope to research this more.

BIfaSP

I bring up this because we were JUST talking about this tonight. Regarding reducing building construction waste, on 'Big Ideas for a Small Planet' on Sundance today there was Michelle Kaufmann, a "prefab architect" who, after building her own home prefab, started a company in the bay area doing sustainable modular prefab homes. Everything is made in the shop in pieces (everything), and brought to site to be "installed." Since it's all manufactured in one place they can also assure quality control and of course environmental standards (recycled content, insulation, etc...). I'd like to think about how this would apply to hi-rises in NYC, but I'm scared I'd wake up in the middle of the night with union rep business agents and large scary men who intend on placing me at the bottom of some river, or in a wet concrete footing somewhere.

Oh yeah, on that same episode, there was bit on Carlton Brown building green affordable housing in Harlem and it showed some Pratt students.

PS:

"The most sustainable material is the one that you don't use."
-Michelle Kaufmann

"If you're standing on the sideline, you don't have the right to complain."
-Carlton Brown

"Bla bla bla, bla bla bla bla"
-Senators McCain and Obama

Flood Proof TA Grates

We talked about this in the first class. Check out the recent prototypes of NYC's new flood proof subways grates, serving other purposes as well.

http://gothamist.com/2008/10/01/mta_installs_second_prototype_of_st.php

Now these are only elevated a mere 6", but target low elevation areas. No doubt it will help, but not if there's a massive flood.

Biking the Bridges

My first one to try was Queensboro Bridge. Not a bad ride at all. It's nice racing the Roosevelt Island cage lift. The downfall of this bridge are the entrances on either side. Although the bridge starts on 2nd Ave in Manhattan, there's a high fence wrapping back down to 1st Ave. This isn't a big issue coming back, since I live on 1st Ave and go that way anyway, but approaching the bridge after coming down 2nd Ave forces me to go an extra block (times 2) out of my way. C'mon, that's not cool. Also, the approach and exit on the Queens side is just a messy long stretch of atypical intersections, which take an effort to cross. My bridge rating = 6/10.

My favorite one thus far is the Williamsburg Bridge. This giant red caged bike platform is wide and splits into two sides on the Brooklyn half. It overlooks the subway tracks and highway below, and offers nice views coming back of midtown to the north and down town to the south.  My only small qualm is when the path splits, the south path is technically for pedestrians only. Because of this they put rumble strips at the bottom, which is very annoying for bikers. As far as I'm concerend, pedestrians are not as important as bikers. I realize I have a long way to go until I fully consider pedestrian safety as important as my convenience, but I'm not quite there yet. It's probalby because pedestrians are so freaking unaware of their surroundings even when given adequate visual or audible warning. This is a topic you can be sure to hear more of from me later on. Regardless of this small inconvenience, my Billiesburg Bridge rating = 9/10.

I have tried the Manhattan Bridge once. It could be the best option if going to or coming from west Fort Greene area, but other than that it's narrow and the entrances are tough to find.  It does offer a nice view down onto the Verizon baseball field on the Manhattan side, but other than that it's not the greatest. My bridge rating = 4/10.

I have yet to ride over the Brooklyn Bridge (although I have walked it), but I look foward to doing it when the opportunity presents itself. I almost did this when attempting to cut the 5 Boro bike tour down to 4 boros to save time, but I never even got to Queens due to the bottleneck at the entrance to the Queensboro and my overwhelming impatience. I also hear that the Verrazano Narrows Bridge offers pretty amazing views of lower Manhattan.

Green Walls

When you think of LEED's "heat island effect" for "non-roof" most people just think of the ground. But what about the walls? Just because a wall is vertical doesn't mean there isn't significant heat gain. And if a nice green roof or ground level garden can offer us other benefits like insulation, mitigating water runoff and absorbing CO2, why can't a wall?

A green wall popped up a block away from my jobsite up on 86th and 3rd, covering the PURE YOGA studio. At first I though it was just a greenwashing gimmick but as I thought about it more, I realized that, most principles applied to a roof can somehow be utilized by a wall as well. AND you can see it!

This morning I found an article in treehugger.com, which is not my favorite website, but regardless...

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/09/11-buildings-wrapped-in-green-walls.php

The company gsky is the biggest manufacturer thus far. And once again I was disgusted to find that, even though these are fairly new in the US, Europe already has a ton of them....

http://www.verticalgardenpatrickblanc.com/

Regarding the inside green wall, are there any methods in place for insect mitigation? That's the only concern I would have. I had a bunch of plants in my office and one of my succulents was attracting these little flies.

The MillionTreesNYC project is pretty extensive, welcoming the efforts of other charities as well. I spent a day out in Kissena Park in Queens with the NYCares program doing just that. Random community residents also joined in throughout the day. It was pretty powerful.