THEORY - SMART ARCHITECTURE

Defensive solutions to the environmental problem, solutions which are primarily aimed at reducing energy and materials consumption, will seldom prove sustainable. They lack a surplus value capable of promoting rapid, widespread acceptance.

Smart solutions, on the other hand, kill two birds with one stone: they lower the environmental load and simultaneously enhance usability. Recent projects show that ecological building can result in a renewed architecture. New building techniques, energy concepts and facade systems are integrated in an innovative way in architecture.

Nevertheless the impact of the environmental theme can be much larger if the ideas about durability, biological analogies and self-sufficient systems are carried out more radically. Fresh ideas that oppose the often painfully experienced limitations of the newest environmental rules on the designer. Only with innovative concepts can ecological building be challenging and lose its stigma of Calvinistic frugality. In THEORY you find five descriptions of themes which lead towards a real green architecture.

- Energy Generator - Natural Building - Keeping Warm...and Chilling Out - Best Before End - Scarcity creates creativity

Environmental Policy In The 21st Century

By Roland WallScience Writer, Environmental Associates

Part 1: New perspectives for the new millenium.
I. IntroductionII. The new language of environmental protectionIII. Where does the waste go?IV. ConclusionV. References

I. Introduction

In 1992, James Gustave Speth, then-President of the World Resources Institute, along with two former Adminstrators of the US Environmental Protection Agency--Russell Train and Douglas Trostle--wrote a ground-breaking article(1) supporting "a new national strategy that fuses the goals of a healthy environment and a strong economy" Outlining a series of innovative practices, they urged that "Government and business must appreciate that they face a new environmental reality."
When an intellectual discipline changes the way it views reality, scholars sometimes call it a "paradigm shift." Darwin's theory of evolution and Einstein's general relativity are both examples of paradigm shifts that mark the path of scientific history. Though these changes can be disruptive and controversial, they can often stimulate new knowledge and discovery.
With business and government searching for new ways to both simplify and strengthen environmental protection, it has been suggested that the field of environmental management is undergoing just such a fundamental change Overall, there is a shift away from narrowly prescribed, corrective actions using confrontation and enforcement, and towards comprehensive models that emphasize prevention, collaboration and sustainability.
According to Dennis Rondinelli of the University of North Carolina, such a change in view would be based on "a new system of environmental policy and management that allows the private sector to move beyond compliance to eliminate pollution in manufacturing processes, products, and operations."(2)
But while preventing--even eliminating--pollution is certainly desirable (and moving "beyond compliance" would also seem an obvious goal), the implementation of new models of environmental protection--like all paradigm shifts--has not been without controversy.
Despite this, many experts see clear indications that such changes are underway. Indeed, by 1999 Speth, now Dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Management, could state confidently "I believe we are in the midst of a paradigm shift in our thinking about environmental governance. "(3)
In our next two issues we will be looking at a variety of principles and techniques that are rapidly becoming part of modern environmental thinking, as well as some of the caveats to be considered as policy changes are contemplated in the United States.

II. The new language of environmental protection

To understand these changes, it is helpful to recognize the language that is being used to describe them. There are a variety of terms and practices (see Figure 1) which collectively relate to what may be called a new environmental paradigm. We will start with one of the most important, commonly identified by the curious label "P2/E2".
Though it may sound like the name of a character in a science fiction movie, "P2/E2" is actually short for "pollution prevention/eco-efficiency." It is a central concept in a type of environmental management that would go beyond just obeying detailed regulations. (And while the idea of P2E2 may not seem as exciting as science fiction, it is driven by thinking and technology that are, at times, just as futuristic.)
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Center for Hazardous Materials Research (CHMR), an environmental think-tank, describes pollution prevention as "the reduction or elimination of discharges or emissions to the environment." Two general techniques for achieving this are "reducing the generation of wastes at their source (source reduction)" and "reclaiming wastes once they are generated (environmentally sound recycling)."(4)
At first glance this may seem a very broad practice to have its own field of study, much less to become a sophisticated business tool. After all, reducing waste is a matter of common sense, and certainly--with the environmental regulations of the past few decades--there has been a strong impetus for business to eliminate or recycle waste discharges. (Indeed, recycling is almost becoming an ingrained virtue in American culture, a civic duty like voting or paying taxes.)
But while pollution prevention is simple in theory, practicing it within the complex technical and commercial structure of an industry is considerably more challenging. Yet despite this (and despite the fact that companies have traditionally seen environmental controls as costly and burdensome), the modern view is that P2 can serve to both protect the environment and to help companies profit.
Proponents of P2 are fond of saying that there are "twenty dollar bills lying around on the factory floors." By this they mean that we live in a time of innate scarcity, when materials, resources and energy are all facing sharp limits and increased expense. Approaching production with a new eye to efficiency and waste reduction is not only good for the environment, it can be good for business's bottom line.
"Pollution prevention is good business," according to the CHMR. "While most pollution control strategies cost money, pollution prevention has saved many firms thousands of dollars in treatment and disposal costs alone. Many companies have already discovered the tremendous benefits of pollution prevention."(5)
The techniques used in pollution prevention tend to be very concrete, and they emphasize both identifying waste and taking specific, proactive steps to prevent it. Thus recommendations for P2 practices can range from switching types of light bulbs to keeping a chemical inventory, and can ultimately involve large scale processes such as having a company-wide pollution control policy.
Eco-efficiency--the "E2" piece--is defined somewhat more expansively than simply minimizing discharges to the environment. According to the World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD) "Eco-efficiency is reached by the delivery of competitively priced goods and services that satisfy human needs and bring quality of life, while progressively reducing ecological impacts and resource intensity throughout the life cycle, to a level at least in line with the earth's estimated carrying capacity."(6)
There are several important elements to this definition which allow eco-efficiency to transcend pollution prevention.. Implicitly suggested here is a cultural transformation--no single business is going to have ecological impacts beyond the earth's estimated carrying capacity. Instead, the implication is that business as a whole will consider the carrying capacity of the earth when designing products and processes.
In addition, by specifying "competitively priced goods and services that meet human needs," they are recognizing the reality of operating in the marketplace, while, at the same time, discouraging the development of products that are frivolous or destructive. Most importantly, by having the definition include reducing "resource intensity throughout the life cycle" of the product, they are addressing a concern that pollution prevention alone may not lessen the environmental impacts of business.
This last point is based on the concern that--paradoxically--by increasing the efficiency of the production process (and by making products more attractive by marketing them as "eco-friendly"), the company may actually end up using more resources to meet increased consumer demand. As the World Resource Institute explains: "the financial savings from process efficiency are eventually steered toward additional consumption, either by the firm or its customers. This effect is not inherently negative, because consumption drives economic growth, but in the absence of major shifts toward sustainable technologies this additional consumption exacerbates our global challenges."(7)
On the other hand, by taking responsibility for the resources of a product throughout it's life cycle--through recycling, product "take backs," or simply increasing product durability to give it a longer life span--an industry is reducing the use of resources while at the same time enhancing environmental quality. In its most comprehensive form, manufacturers would take "cradle to grave" responsibility for a product, i.e. when one is done with a product, it is returned to the manufacturer for recycling. This is being done voluntarily and on a small scale in the U.S., but is becoming required by law for some industries in Europe.
The WBCSD, identifies eco-efficiency as "the business strategy to implement sustainable development" and sees it as consisting of seven components, paraphrased here:
Use less materials to provide goods and services
Use less energy to provide goods and services
Emit fewer toxins
Recycle more materials
Use sustainable renewable resources
Make products last longer
Sell things in the form of services rather than as one-time products.
In this definition, P2 could be considered a component of eco-efficiency. Pollution prevention however, is often used as a label unto itself, and is referred to explicitly both in U.S. legislation and by the EPA.
While in a practical sense there is no point in trying to dissect out the distinctions between "P2" and "E2," a report to the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) suggests a useful perspective: "Eco-Efficiency starts from issues of economic efficiency which have positive environmental benefits, while cleaner production [a term sometime used interchangeably with pollution prevention] starts from issues of environmental efficiency which have positive economic benefits."(8)
Industrial ecology, another variation on sustainable production, takes the thinking of P2E2 to a more comprehensive level. Industrial ecology proposes that business conceive of itself as an ecosystem, with multiple feedback loops that increase efficiency and recycle waste as raw materials. The Kalundberg Industrial Park in Denmark (see KYE 7/00) has become a global model in creating an interlocking system of industries. It includes an oil refinery, a drywall factory and a power plant which, along with a variety of other businesses operate in a "closed loop" system of resources and recycling, operating with reduced resource use and essentially zero emissions to the environment.
Figure 1: Some of the new language of environmental protection
~Pollution Prevention: The reduction or elimination of discharges or emissions to the environment. (EPA)
~Cleaner Production : The continuous application of an integrated, preventive environmental strategy applied to processes, products and services to increase overall efficiency and reduce risks to humans and the environment.(UNEP)
~Eco Efficiency: A combination of economic and ecological efficiency, it ,means delivery of competitively priced goods and services that satisfy human needs and bring quality of life, while progressively reducing ecological impacts and resource intensity throughout the life cycle, to a level at least in line with the earth's estimated carrying capacity.(WBCSD)
~Design for Environment (DfE): Incorporating environmental considerations into the design and redesign of products, processes, and technical and management systems. DfE is an approach companies use to make business decisions that consider environmental impacts. (EPA)
~Source Reduction: Manufacturing an equivalent product using less material.
~Life Cycle Analysis: A technique for assessing the potential environmental aspects and potential aspects associated with a product (or service), by: compiling an inventory of relevant inputs and outputs, evaluating the potential environmental impacts associated with those inputs and outputs, interpreting the results of the inventory and impact phases in relation to the objectives of the study.(ISO)
~"Beyond Compliance": A somewhat subjective term referring to the committment of a company to follow practices that will exceed the minimal regulatory standards; it is sometimes said that companies making such a committment view the legal standards as "a floor not a ceiling."
~Environmental Covenant: a written agreement [designed to achieve environmental policy objectives] between the government and others (local authorities, industry, non-governmental organizations). Such an agreement is negotiated and has the force of legal contract.
~Adaptive Management: A school of thought that, because ecosystems are inherently complex, environmental managment must be pursued as an open-ended, experimental process in which changes are made as learning is gained. This approach has been advocated for complex problems like fisheries and water management.
~Factor 10: Based in Europe’s Wupperal Institute, Factor 10 is a philosophy for radical efficiency--ie. improving efficiency by a factor of 10. Though not yet widely known in the U.S., it has received support from some of Europe’s most prestigious environmental officials.
~ISO 14000: Standards established by the International Organization on Standardization, an independent non-governmental organization, designed to provide clear measures that will assist businesses in lessening their environmental impacts and improving the overall quality of operations. (ISO) (See Part 2).
~Global Reporting Initiative: "A long-term, multi-stakeholder, international undertaking whose mission is to develop and disseminate globally applicable sustainability reporting guidelines for voluntary use by organisations reporting on the economic, environmental, and social dimensions of their activities, products and services." (CERES) (See Part 2).
Quoted sources in parenthesis.

III. Where does waste go?

Beyond just changing the relationships between profit making and environmental protection, these new paradigms require changes in how businesses and consumers think about the use of resources. Too often in the past, society has behaved as if resource processing and disposal could be carried out indefinitely, and too often as individuals we have perceived our own consumption behaviors as having no larger context.
It is important, therefore, to take a broad view of how resources are "used," and of what is actually involved in disposing of something. To develop a new way of looking at resource conservation, some writers suggest thinking of the world as being divided into different "spheres" of physical and chemical interaction, each playing a role in the overall functioning of the earth.
These "spheres" include the atmosphere (the envelope of gases surrounding the earth), the lithosphere (the solid minerals that make up the planet) and the hydrosphere (the interconnected bodies of water on the earth.) The "ecosphere" indicates the interlocking life forms and living processes that exist on the planet. Environmental impacts usually involve the movement of matter through the "technosphere", described as "a collective term for all those aspects of the physical environment that have been created or altered by humans,"(9) and into one of the other spheres.
One of the fundamental laws of nature is that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but it can be converted into different forms. A burning piece of firewood, for example, is being converted into a variety of gases and particulate matter while releasing the energy of the chemical bonds that hold together the molecules of the wood. None of the total matter of the wood, however, is being destroyed. If you could somehow gather together all of the ash, gases and particles, you would still have the same mass of matter that was contained in the original wood.
This is a basic law of physics but it is also a basic consideration in environmental management. We can see the importance of this by watching the "life cycle" of the firewood from the time it is collected. Wood is removed from the ecosphere and oxidized (set on fire) in a fireplace. Both the match which ignite it and the fireplace are examples of the technosphere.
The combustion products of the wood may then end up in the atmosphere (carbon dioxide gas, for example) or the lithosphere (particles and ash may fall to earth and become part of the soil), or they may even dissolve in the ocean and become part of the hydrosphere. From this perspective, almost any negative environmental impact by humans, whether it's burning forests, spilling oil or even littering, ultimately involves the movement of matter from one sphere to the other.
Reducing the transfer of matter between the earth's spheres can provide a model for reducing resource use and environmental deterioration. The reason for this lies in the interactions between the earth's living and non-living systems. Because the ecosphere exists within the atmosphere, lithosphere and hydrosphere, it is exposed to the physical and chemical compositions of these spheres.
Conservation can be thought of as reducing the movement of resources from biologically usable forms (e.g. trees) to irretrievable ones (ash, carbon dioxide) and at the same time minimizing the exposure of living systems to the negative byproducts of the non-living (e.g. smoke, carbon monoxide).
Dr. Karl-Henrik Robert, a European physician, has founded an organization called The Natural Step which promotes sustainable practices by corporations. To guide industries towards sustainability, Robert and a group of environmental scientists developed a set of basic principles, two of which deal with the movement of substances into the ecosphere. Several large companies, including IKEA and Electrolux, now subscribe to the principles of the Natural Step.
According to the Natural Step "In order for society to be sustainable, nature's functions and diversity" should not be subjected "to increasing concentration of substances extracted from the earth's crust" or "to increasing concentrations of substances produced by society." (10) These two simple statements sum up major tenets of sustainability and essential goals of eco-efficiency.
Robert and his colleagues note that "The ecosphere and the living systems in the ecosphere are not adapted to systematically increasing concentrations of materials that were earlier stored in the Earth's crust."(11) Thus, the first principle states that living systems should not be systematically exposed to increasing amounts of substances from the lithosphere--e.g. minerals, fuels, heavy metals.
In the second principle, the same recommendation is made for products of the technosphere--toxic substances, solid waste, combustion products, scrapped automobiles, to name a few. Again, these products would not be systematically accumulated in the ecosphere.
In addition to the movement of resources between global systems, the Natural Step also observes that "In a sustainable society, humans will avoid taking more from the biosphere than can be replenished by natural systems." This is similar to what Europe's "Factor 10" Institute (another group promoting intensive levels of conservation) describes as the difference "between cleanliness and sustainability."
The Factor 10 Institute starts with the proposition that traditional environmental policy has been designed to clean and protect the specific mediums of air, soil and water, sometimes with regulators of one medium being unaware of one another. Often, to accomplish this "filter technologies have been mounted at the ends of pipes in order to control emissions at the tail end of production and consumption."(12)
Yet, "even a clean economy can cheerfully continue" to have negative environmental impacts. "What really matters is the sheer volume of material throughput, not so much the pollutants in the output."(13) To be truly sustainable then, corporations should be cognizant of the overall impacts of their products, not just their emissions. Schmidt-Bleek of Factor 10 refers to this as a product's "ecological rucksack."
Similar to the ecological footprint (see Know Your Environment, 8/00), the ecological rucksack for a product "is the total amount of material translocated for the purpose of constructing it." The rucksack can be estimated in weight, much the same as the ecological footprint for individuals and societies is calculated in acres. This would include not only the weight of the product, but the fuel, mining waste, and other materials that are necessary for producing it.
Often the weight of the rucksack will be far greater than the product itself, and sometimes this can be by several orders of magnitude. Schmidt-Bleek notes, for example, that manufacturing a catalytic converter--a seemingly benign device weighing at most a few pounds--requires the translocation of over a ton of materials. Included in this is the process of mining platinum as well as the production of steel and ceramics.

IV. Conclusion

While this may all seem rather abstract, it provides a reference point for decision-making on the processes that commerce utilizes, and the products that it manufactures. By maintaining an awareness of the ultimate fate of the materials and byproducts that enter the ecosphere, businesses and communities develop a larger sense of how they are impacting the environment.
The environmental policies that grow out of these concepts represent a fundamental change in how environmental protection--particularly in the U.S.--has been carried out in the past. As such it may require re-thinking on the part of both (or more accurately all) sides of environmental questions. While traditional environmentalists will need to recognize that detailed directions on the techniques of pollution control may not be effective in the long-run, industry will have to adapt to making environmental and resource considerations an integral part of business planning.
The International Organization on Standardization--which produces the environmental standards known as ISO14000--summarizes how business might look at this new thinking. "Any manager will try to avoid pollution that could cost the company a fine for infringing environmental legislation. But better managers will agree that doing only just enough to keep the company out of trouble with government inspectors is a rather weak and reactive approach to business in today's increasingly environment-conscious world."(14)
While it is not clear that industry or government are prepared for the sort of unconventional analysis suggested by some of the groups promoting sustainability, there are signs on the horizon that environmental management may indeed be changing. Speth, echoing his comments of seven years before, told an assembled group of environmentalists in 1999 " So bring on the new paradigm. The old paradigm was necessary and appropriate in its day. Now we must reach for something better."(15)
In our next issue we will look at some of the practical moves currently underway by both government and business to implement new policy models. Ranging from business groups that promote sustainability, to regulatory agencies that negotiate covenants with industry, to environmental organizations that form partnerships with past polluters, environmental policy may look very different in the new century.
References
1. Speth, J.G, R. Train, and D. Costle. 1992. Double or Nothing: Linking U.S. Economic and Environmental Objectives. WRI Issues and Ideas. World Resources Institute: Wash.DC.
2. Rondinelli, D. 2000. Rethinking U.S. Environmental Protection Policy: Management Challenges For A New Administration. University of North Carolina: Chapel Hill NC.
3. Speth, J.G., 1999. "A New Paradigm: Bring It On!" Presentation: The Environmental Law Institute’s Thirtieth Anniversary Awards Dinner. Washington DC, Oct. 26, 1999.
4. CHMR, 1996. Fact Sheet: "Pollution Prevention: The Environmental Strategy of the Nineties." Center For Hazardous Materials Research (CHMR), Pittsburgh PA.
5. CHMR, 1996. Cited above.
6. World Business Council for Sustainable Development. 1998. Cleaner Production and Eco-efficiency : Complementary approaches to sustainable development. WBCD/ UN Environmental Program: UNEP's Fifth International High Level Seminar on Cleaner Production.
7. Day, R. "Beyond Eco-Efficiency: Sustainability as a Driver for Innovation." Sustainable Enterprises Perspective: World Resources Institute, March 1998.
8. WBCSD/UNEP. 1996. Eco-Efficiency and Cleaner Production: Charting the Course to Sustainability. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development - April/May 1996.
9. Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology, Harcourt Inc.
10. Holmberg, J., Robert, K-H., and K-E. Eriksson. "Socio-ecological principles for a sustainable society," in Costanza, R. (ed.) 1996. Getting down to earth: practical applications for ecological economics. Island Press: Wash. DC.
11. Holmberg et al. 1996. Cited above.
12. Schmidt-Bleek, F., 2000. Factor 10 Manifesto. Factor 10 Institute, Carnoules, France.
13. Schmidt-Bleek, F., 2000, Cited above.
14. International Organization for Standardization, 1998. ISO14000: Meet the whole family! ISO: Geneva.
15. Speth, 1999. Cited above.