Sustainable Development

Home-made pv panels

Andrea Brennen — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:00:53 GMT

In my last post I introduced some of the differences between low-tech vs. high-tech approachs to green design. The Main Solar Energy Association [MeSEA], based in Lubec, is a great example of the former. Straight out of the pages of the Whole Earth Catalog, MeSEA offers workshops in "do-it-yourself-solar" and publishes a quarterly newsletter, The Maine Sun.

I spoke with the organization's John Burke and Soni Biehl at the NESEA trade show. Soni showed me a functioning home-made pv panel, built from industry seconds, and handed me a copy of The Maine Solar Primer, "a compilation of practical information and diagrams from past issues of The Maine Sun."

Lessons from the Maine Solar Primer

Yes, you can use solar energy in Maine; in fact, if you're industrious, you can build your own solar hybrid green house, solar [air] heater, solar cooker, solar herb and food drier, or "bread box" solar water heater. To help you get started, the Primer contains step-by-step how-to instructions, illustrated with a series of very helpful hand-drawn diagrams.

If you're really ambitious, you can follow the instructions listed in the section on "Passive Solar Architecture" to design your own passive solar house!

The three basic principles of passive solar, as described by Sarah Holland, are as follows:

1. Use windows, Trombe walls*, or solar air heaters to bring heated air into the building.

2. Take advantage of thermal mass* to store this solar heat inside the space.

3. Superinsulate the building to regulate the temperature at night.

*A Trombe wall is a wall system made up of an interior heavy thermal mass layer [often concrete, painted black] and an exterior layer of insulated glazing, separated by a vented airspace. Yes, you read that correctly, it's basically a window in front of a black concrete wall. The way it works is that during the day, sunlight shines through the insulated glazing to warm the surface of the thermal mass wall, which warms the inside space. At night, heat is retained in the thermal mass; the insulated glass and the air space both acting to slow down the process of heat loss to the exterior.

*Thermal mass: is a term referring to the capacity of a material to store heat, it is also known as "heat capacity." Basically, a material with a high heat capacity [referred to as a thermal mass] heats up slowly and then retains this heat. Thermal mass in buildings helps to regulate the interior temperature, especially in climates that are hot and sunny during the day and cooler at night. Building materials with a high heat capacity include: water, soil / rammed earth, stone, and concrete.

Do-it-yourself-solar goes international

MeSEA has been / is currently engaged in a number of international projects. President Dr. Richard Komp has lead pv-making workshops in Rwanda, Haiti, Mexico, Peru, India, and Mali; he is currently working with Suni Solar, the commercial arm of the Nicaraguan Grupo Fenix, to install 50 solar electric systems in various rural schools across Nicaragua.

These projects, as well as MeSEA's domestic endeavors, all exude the same help-people-help-themselves ethos you might expect from a green building organization run by industrious Mainers.

Nothing New Under the Sun?

Sara Wolcott — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 17:27:37 GMT

Yesterday I wrote a post on 'Base your theory on reality or else stop what you're doing'. It sparked an interesting conversation about the very real challenges of changing big systems. So often, cutting edge social change organisations are at the forefront of good work - and then 6, 10, 15 years later a bigger organisation gets around to talking about the things that they were doing years ago and could barely (if even) get the funding for it. We say we want social change and sustainable development, but it is, at best, slow. Expensive consultancies are carried out at UN and other agencies - and then three years later, the organisations are asking for, essentially, the same consultancy. They didn't incorporate the lessons of the first one. Can organisations ever learn? There is talk of a 'new capitalism' and 'connected capitalism' - but that's not so far away from alternative models to capitalism suggested by the sustainability movement 20, 30, even 50 years ago (depending on who you talk to). Can societies learn?

Yes, they can. Slowly. Before getting too bogged down in the challenges of changing society, let's remember something: reality comes from repetition. A river becomes a river because water keeps flowing down it. It is the continual repetition (or very close to repetitive - after all, no river is ever the exact same, moment to moment) that causes change. Not one protestor, but thousands. Not one protest, but hundereds. Not in one location, but around the country. Not for one hour, but for hours, or days. So articles, reports, consultancies, etc that are not in some way supported by others - that are not connected - can not actually lead to real change - to real sustainable development. Somedays, it may seem as if there is nothing new under the sun - but that's not necessary a bad thing. Just because an idea is 'old' doesn't mean it is out of date - take the Tobin Tax, now gaining serious milage. Why? Because there is a new 'policy space', an openness to explore an old idea and apply it to the current situation.

Marcia's recent post on crowdsourcing offers another aspect of this - social enterprise using crowdsourcing is definately new. It uses connection and repetition at a whole new level - essential for the repetitive patterns that create social change. And it is threatening established philanthropy and established ways of doing things. How much that philanthropy will really change - hard to say. But it's got a fascinating combination of old and new ingredients - certainly worth watching to see how (if) it will change sustainable development.

The low-tech, high-tech debate

Andrea Brennen — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 00:54:59 GMT

There is a general agreement about the problem at hand: the climate is changing and the sea levels will rise; burning fossil fuels is bad and the projected business-as-usual scenarios are dismal; buildings are significant consumers of energy and there is a desperate need to rethink the way they work.

There is less accord and more debate, however, when it comes to deciding how, exactly, buildings should work.

Before I go on, two brief asides:

1. Yes, I am aware that there are those who still maintain that there is no problem - but I'm assuming that if you're reading JustMeans editorials, you probably don't fall into that group.

2. In this post, I'm trying to give the impression that there is an active debate in the Green Building / Sustainable Design movement [is it a movement?] over the best way to do things. In reality, this "debate" is mostly, as of yet, unspoken. There are lots of people doing "sustainable" design, many of whom are operating under very different assumptions and doing things that directly contradict one another. However, for some reason, there isn't a lot of discourse about why.

End of digression.

One significant source of disagreement in the green building industry has to do with what I'll call the low-tech high-tech debate.

Simply put, the low-tech folks [you might know them better as "natural builders" or, dare I say it, "hippies"] seem to subscribe to the following logic: Modernism, modernization, and unchecked capitalism got us into the mess we're in. Greener buildings, therefore, are those which are "closer to the earth," made from natural materials [which are assumed to be healthier], and that take advantage of vernacular knowledge and age-old traditions.

The high-tech people, on the other hand, [who tend to talk about things like "high performance buildings" "energy efficiency" and various assessments of one type or another] seem to share a belief in the power of new technology, digital design tools, and increased efficiency. Their approach is based on the premise that we can think, design, and optimize our way out of the problems we face.

For one group the answer is reverting back to simpler, greener, pre-industrial times; for the other, it's fighting Modernization with hyper-modernization.

Yes, of course I am aware that I am making sweeping generalizations. My intention isn't to oversimplify but rather, to use a bit of hyperbole try to tease out some of the underlying assumptions made by both the low- and high-tech advocates.

For example, the high-tech folks seem to define "sustainability" primarily in terms of operational energy efficiency. The closer you can get to net-zero energy use, the greener your building is. Often the proposed solution involves expensive and complex energy monitoring systems [that can malfunction] and state-of-the-art materials [that are quite energy intensive to produce]. For them, the problem [energy optimization] is difficult; thus the appropriate tools are sophisticated, and the resulting buildings are complex.

The proponents of a low-tech approach seem to focus more on where the building materials come from and how they are produced. Local is better and cobb, strawbale, adobe, and timber-frame - renewable, low embodied energy, small carbon footprint - are considered the greenest options. The emphasis is on smaller, simpler buildings, and there's often a moral assumption that part of building green is living a wholesome, healthy, organic lifestyle. The problem [we use too many resources] is obvious; the solution, also clear.

While both might be "green," these are clearly two very different strategies.

Base your theory on reality - or else stop what you're doing

Sara Wolcott — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:00:04 GMT

If it sounds like I'm frustrated, it's because I am.

I just listened to a very smart, very kind, very sweet and very Not In Touch With Reality economist. He was talking about migration - a key subject for anyone concerned with climate change, sustainable development or international development. He was sharing his experience in trying to mesh social theory of why people migrate with economic theory - ie, mathematical models which could predict people's experience of reality. I was intrigued. Afterall, behavioral economics and psychological economics have offered some fascinating insights - though I must say, most of them I could have told them before they did their proofs, but still, it was interesting. I've got tremendous respect for economics, and am grateful I get to work with many economists. So I went to listen. But I wasn't able to stay till the end - it was just too painful.

Economists have an annoying habit of basing their theory on a reality that doesn't exist. Markets are not stable. Human beings are not rational actors. And in the case of this guy, discussing migration without discussing income is not realistic. He sought to hold income stable before and after migrants moved, and to focus instead on relative inequality. While it's true that relative inequality does support at least some migration, much migration happens because of the need to gain greater income. So one can not hold income stable. Yet his theory was based around it. As a result, the mulitple diasporas of the world - of Poles, Jews, Irish, and Eastern Europeans were slammed together with the migrancy of many migrant workers in Africa and south east Asia, despite the difference between them - and the basic facts that drive so much of migration - such as income - was ignored.

But besides one economist whose enthusiasm for his discipline took him away from reality (it is a discipline where one's 'proof' is not in any real 'pudding' but in made-up examples), this raised a much larger challenge for sustainable development. All of us, regardless of our disciplines, are prone to make decisions based on our theory of what should happen, or what we think happens, and not on what actually does happen. And that does not serve anyone.

Photo Credit: Iaau

Spoiling the Soup: The Limits of NGOs in Sustainable Development

Kendra Pierre-Louis — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 22:54:36 GMT

Nestled squarely in Southeast Asia, the Kingdom of Cambodia is best known as a haven for backpackers, the beauty of Angkor Wat, and the brutal totalitarian regime of the Khmer Rouge which ruled Cambodia from 1975 to 1979. But, as a friend, who recently spent time working with organizations in Cambodia, jokes, as a nation Cambodia should be better known for NGO's. This relatively small country with a population of roughly 15 million people has over 200 International NGO's, 400 local NGOs and nearly 600 associations registered with the government of Cambodia working to make Cambodia 'better'. Many of these organizations have overlapping interests and goals which actually work towards inhibiting sustainable development instead of benefitting it.

The presence of NGO's, especially the number of international NGO's, exploded in the beginning of the 1990's after the Paris Peace Accord Agreement, signed by the Cambodian leaders in 1991NGO's flooded to fill the void left behind by decades of war and bad governance.

The problem?

Nearly twenty years after their introduction, Cambodia is as dependent, if not more so, on NGO support and it's the sort of dependency that is self-perpetuating. Their presence has resulted in the absence of a collective voice, fragmentation and duplication of NGO projects, as well as inhibiting an NGO's own ability to assess the efficacy of their own projects. As my friend pointed out, if my NGO gives a farmer a chicken, and another NGO gives a farmer a cow it's hard to determine if their improvement in well-being is due to my chicken, the other NGO's cow, or the fact that their child is now being fed two meals a day at the local NGO funded school.

In addition, because NGO's are taking on the role of many government functions - from road building to education - there's little push to hold the government accountable. It is, in essence, the dilemma of too many cooks in the kitchen.

This isn't to say that NGO's shouldn't operate in Cambodia. But that it's important to check to make sure that as workers we're doing more good than harm.

Green building (ac)countability?

Andrea Brennen — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 20:57:49 GMT

Last week at the NESEA Building Energy10 Conference, I attended a session called Counting Measuring Reporting: what's important? where architect Chris Benedict instigated a really interesting conversation about standards, scientific evidence, and accountability for energy efficient buildings.

The premise of the session was simple enough: NESEA is developing a database of energy efficient buildings - a resource for architects, builders, clients, etc. that will include a series of case study projects, providing information about the green design elements of each as well as supporting post-occupancy energy data. ["Post-occupancy data" is collected after the building is built and people are using the space. For the record, it is not uncommon to see a pretty sizable difference between the projected building performance, simulated in the design phase by architects and engineers, and the actual "post-occupancy" energy data.]

Anyway, the NESEA database will offer a way of comparing various green strategies, systems, and products to begin to determine how they actually function in practice. In order to create such a tool, Benedict, working on behalf of NESEA, is in the process of deciding what aspects of the buildings, exactly, ought to be measured, recorded, and collected. In the session, she presented a draft of a questionnaire designed to collect this information and solicited the audience for feedback.

Simple enough, right?

Wrong.

What ensued was a pretty fascinating [and occasionally heated] debate about how and what should be measured by whom and what it all would, could, and should mean to the industry. If you're thinking to yourself "how could that conversation possibly be interesting and/or controversial?" Let me see if I can summarize a couple of the key issues for you here:

1. There is a lack of agreed upon standards. For example, energy is sometimes measured in Btu's, sometimes in kWh. Square footage is sometimes calculated from the outside edge of exterior walls, sometimes from the inside; some people include auxiliary spaces or unfinished basements; some people prefer to use the R-value [a measure of thermal resistance, or insulation effectiveness] specified by product manufacturers, while others insist that the "actual" measured R-value of the built wall system should be recorded. You get the idea.

2. Energy performance in buildings is difficult [and expensive] to measure. We are not talking about experiments conducted in the confines of a controlled laboratory space. Buildings are huge and complex, involving many complicated systems operating at the same time, each of which has its own error in measurement. To make things even more complicated, buildings are inhabited, operated, and modified by real people who often don't follow [or even know about] the architect's/engineer's/builder's recommendations. For example, simulated energy performance might be based on an assumption that the thermostat will be kept at 65 degrees F. If someone in the building gets cold and turns it up to 73 and then someone else gets hot and opens a window, "post-occupancy" data will show the system to be considerably less efficient than predicted. Due to the complexity of large buildings, not to mention the interference of those pesky human occupants, it's very difficult to know the precise reason for a building's energy success or failure.

Anyway, what I find interesting about all of this is that it seems as if Architecture, before our very eyes, is in the process of becoming a science. Its practitioners are engaged in an ongoing debate that, while it may seem mundane and nitpicky on the surface, actually involves some pretty fundamental questions about how we know what we know and what we should do with that information.

Despite the debate about how and what to measure, the BuildingEnergy10 attendees definitely seemed to be in agreement about the fact that measuring is important. It will, as the argument goes, provide quantitative data about which systems are more efficient, help people in the field to standardize research efforts and learn from each other, and offer an alternative way of thinking about cost effectiveness. Instead of "cost effective" being thought of in terms of payback, with the right measurement tools, it can be thought of in terms of meeting specific environmental benchmarks.

Nerding out over insulation at BuildingEnergy10

Andrea Brennen — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 18:36:18 GMT

Last week I attended the BuildingEnergy10 Conference put on by NESEA [the Northeast Sustainable Energy Association] at the World Trade Center in Boston, Massachusetts. It was a solid three days of lectures, workshops, and vendor booths, where industry experts commiserated about the bleakness of climate change, debated the merits of evacuated solar tubes vs. flat pv panels, and nerded out over insulation.

I'll do my best to summarize it all in the most interesting way possible, but first, here is a little background info about NESEA.

The Northeast Sustainable Energy Association, a chapter of the American Solar Energy Society, is a regional membership organization operating in 10 Northeastern states [from Maine to D.C]. According to their website, "NESEA has supported and inspired a growing network of professionals and sustainable energy advocates committed to responsible energy use." Members include architects, engineers, educators, builders, energy consultants, renewable energy manufacturers and installers, facilities managers, policymakers, planners, and students. NESEA holds an annual Building Energy conference where all of these diverse practitioners share their latest research, current opinions, and new products.

This year, sessions were organized into 9 tracks, each designed around a particular theme: climate change policy, emerging trends in renewable energy, new construction [commercial and residential], retrofits [commercial and residential], mechanical systems, building materials, and "Whole Systems in Action."

The keynote address was given by Dr. Samuel Baldwin, Chief Technology Officer and Member of the Board of Directors of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the US Department of Energy. Baldwin spoke to the frightening challenges the US is facing - climate change and resource security - but also addressed a hopeful range of new opportunities within the renewable energy sector.

Some take away sound bites:

- High performance windows aren't the be all and end all of green design. New studies show that they might not actually be worth the investment. Basically, the benefits of double pane over single pane are huge, but after that, much of the heat is lost not through the glass, but through the frame.

- Spray foam insulation isn't all it's cracked up to be. Yes, it works, but the blowing agent [i.e. the chemical additive that allows it to be sprayed] has such a high "global warming potential" in and of itself, that if you're worried about your carbon footprint, you're better off with EPS [extruded polystyrene] or better yet, insulation made from recycled newspaper, blue jeans, or sheep's wool. And for the record, yes, "global warming potential" appears to be an official, measurable value.

- "Green retrofits" are definitely the cool thing to talk about. I'm not sure if this is because of an ideological belief that reuse is greener than new construction, or a pragmatic realization that there isn't a lot of new building going on right now. Whatever the reason, the retrofit bandwagon is definitely gaining momentum.

In general, there was a definite [and refreshing!] emphasis on action over discourse at BuildingEnergy10 - people discussing what they have done and what they are planning to do, as opposed to what they think we should or could or might not do. However, even this action-focused crowd apparently has its limits. I don't mean to focus on the negative, but I was surprised to see bottled water served at lunch. I mean, maybe it's not that big of a deal in the scheme of things, but I expected more from this crowd. If we're aiming for massive cultural change, don't we have to be willing to start with our own behavior?

Blu is the new green

Andrea Brennen — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 00:38:30 GMT

As promised, here it is, the coolest new idea in prefab: Blu Homes fold for easier shipping. [In honor of full disclosure, I should probably tell you that Dennis Michaud, Blu Homes' VP of product development is a friend of mine from architecture school. However, that doesn't change the fact that, as you'll see, this company is doing some pretty rad things.]

At the end of last year, Blu Homes, a Massachusetts-based design build company, announced the launch of their Origin product line. The design of Blu's Origin homes is based on a logic of mass customization, an approach that takes advantage of computer-aided manufacturing systems to make products which are customizable for individual needs. Aspects of the homes are standardized - wall sections, programmatic components, construction details - but the flexibility of digital modeling tools and digital fabrication allows these standardized components to be configured and reconfigured in a variety of ways to suit the specific needs of a client and his or her particular site.

Basically, instead of designing single buildings, Blu Homes has created a streamlined system of making buildings that begins with client input, uses innovative digital fabrication techniques, and ends with the finished house. However, while mass customization is definitely an improvement on mass production [and, I might add, an important buzz word in the prefab business] it is not the coolest or most innovative aspect of Blu Homes design.

One of the problems with prefabrication is shipping. Since the prefabricated product [an entire house, in this case] is manufactured off-site, it can be extremely difficult, dangerous, energy intensive, and expensive to transport it to the building site. Blu Homes, however, has devised a way of constructing their homes in such a way that they can literally fold up for smaller, safer, and thus cheaper shipping. The folding mechanism also allows Blue Homes to create modular homes that are more spacious, with higher ceilings.

I didn't really believe it either, at first, but check out this video.

In addition to their innovations in packing, Blu Homes is committed to using healthy, renewable, and recycled building materials, as well as a variety of renewable energy technologies such as rainwater collection and storage, solar hot water heating, and photovoltaic-ready roofs.

What I really appreciate about Blue Homes is that they aren't just incorporating green features into their products, they are using "greenness" as an excuse to innovate.

Small groups changing big groups

Sara Wolcott — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 21:50:01 GMT

Sustainable development requires transforming existing institutions to appropriately adapt to changing times - and doing so in a way that takes into account survival needs (which for most of us is profit), people and planet. This is true at every level of organisation in every country around the world. The question quickly becomes, how do you change institutions?

I generally feel there are four main ways change can happen within organisations. One: Outside forces create change. Government creates new regulations, awareness that nuclear destruction is simply not-ok changes the nuclear industry in the 1940s, etc. Two: Inside - top down change - leadership decides it wants change and finds ways of enforcing it. This is not usually easy - especially these days. There are countless ways of heel-dragging and procrastination and simple non-compliance to what the 'leadership' wants. Three - Conversion. a small group decides it wants to change the organisation and builds partnerships, leverages, lobbies, and works with other parts of the organisation (and outside the organisation) to create change. Four: the process of systemic-self-reflection which leads to transformational change. This is rare and precious, requiring bold, innovative leadership, phenomenal facilitation, and a lot of courage on the part of all employees. It tends to be profound and very effective, which might be part of why it is so rare. All can lead to sustainable development, none are necessarily easy - or necessarily difficult.

There have been many unexpected outcomes from the Conference of Parties at Copenhagen - you know, that big Climate Change Summit-sh'ding - and for me personally and for the world in general. One of them was meeting and joining up with a very small group of other people - just 4-5 of us who are part of the same constituency. We are now working to influence some 'large' - or at least long standing - institutions that are reluctant to change. We are inspired by stories and experiences of other small groups, often volunteers, who worked closely with boards of NGOs to convince the leadership as well as key players within the organisation to bring the organisation to change its ways - in this case, around sustainability and climate change. So now we are trying our hand at it. So far, I'm amazed at how receptive people are within the organisation (we are part of their constituency, so that makes a difference) at our interest and our desire to find ways to support their change. It is very exciting - they want to change, but they don't know how, or what it really means in practice, and don't have the resources or, at the moment, the clear mandate to invest in figuring out how to do so. It's the kind of work I wouldn't want to do alone, and the kind of work that is best with a small group - at least for now.

Photo credit: Good

Misplaced economic nationalism?

Sara Wolcott — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:38:36 GMT

There is a distinct rise in nationalism - especially economic nationalism - conservativism across Europe. In the UK, we increasingly hear the cry for 'British jobs for British workers'. I am hard pressed to oppose their anger and their righteousness. The financial crisis no doubt plays a role in this - jobs have been cut, and with the imminent threat of increasing cuts in public spending to pay for the very expensive bank bailouts, people are left wondering who is going to bail them out.

Meanwhile, around the world, the financial crisis is also affecting poor people in poor countries. Britain's DFID estimates that by Dec 2009, the number of people living on less than $1.25 a day was about 90 million higher as a result of the financial crisis. The World Bank estimates the number of new poor in developing countries will range from 46 million (on less than $1.25) to 53 million (on less than $2 a day). The African Development Bank estimates that a reduction in growth of GDP per capita of three percentage points would result in 98 million additional poor people in 2010 in Asia as compared with a baseline scenario of no economic slowdown. Regardless of which figure you want to use, they all suggest that many people who were previously not poor will be pushed into poverty, and others who were poor will become poorer.

And in those countries, migrants and immigrants are suffering, leading to slow falls in remittances and impacting the lives of those back at home, who watched them leave with a mixture of sadness and desperate hope.

Is it their fault? No.

It is the fault of a financial system that does not promote sustainable international growth and governments who trusted the banks enough to give them blank checks even when their ability to provide for the public good was under severe question. Could these different groups of poor people find connection instead of nationalism? The 'bad guy' isn't the migrant. And while it is not as simple as blaming bankers, the financial system has a lot to answer for - including getting poor people in poor countries far away from the UK sustainable livelihoods that can make a sustainable difference.

Photo credit: Flickr

Do Employees Do it Better? The Role of Business in Sustainable Development

Kendra Pierre-Louis — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:46:58 GMT

The pattern is familiar.

An entrepreneur or entrepreneurs, such as Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield of Ben and Jerry's, or Roxanne Quimby and Burt Shavitz of Burt's Bees, launch an innovative company that challenges conventional business ethics.

In the case of Ben and Jerry's they worked hard to source dairy products locally, and to integrate concepts of sustainability into their business. In the case of Burt's Bee's they eschewed chemical components - by then the norm in personal care products - and with the corporate motto of 'For the Greater Good' tacitly placed corporate responsibility above profits.

However, as the companies grew and the entrepreneurs who started them got older - they wanted to retire, or try their hand at other endeavors and the companies which they started, were bought out, and swallowed up by the very types of companies that they had deliberately avoided emulating.

Does this pattern of business development, repeated time and time again by conscious businesses such as The Body Shop (bought out by Estee Lauder), Tom's of Maine (Colgate-Palmolive), Horizon Organic Milk (U.S. Dean Foods Co.,), Odwalla (Coca-Cola), Naked Juice (Pepsi) evidence that the multinational, publicly traded, corporate model is the only one that we have to create lasting businesses? And what, if anything, does the shape of business have to do with, well, Sustainable Development?

As it turns out understanding and helping to shape the structure and role of business is a critical component of sustainable development. Mega companies such as Wal-Mart, McDonalds and Nestle are often viewed as unsustainable not only because the products in which they trade are often environmentally harmful, but also because their very economic structure is one that typically removes money and wealth from the economies in which they are embedded. They often concentrate wealth, funneling it from local communities upwards to an elite few; a reality that President Abraham Lincoln warned about in an 1864 letter to Colonel William F. Elkins. In it he said,

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

Although he was off in the timing (the collapse of the Great Depression helped to redistribute a great deal of wealth), in the past 30 years in the United States there has been a protracted period of wealth and income inequality. As of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth and the top 1% owned 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth; our current economic recession has only served by most estimates to further entrench this divide.

This is not a good thing.

As Edward Wolf, a professor of economics at New York University and the author of Top Heavy: The Increasing Inequality of Wealth in America and What Can Be Done About It, points out in the May 2003 Multinational Monitor this wealth inequality isn't simply morally repugnant, it's actually harmful to a society's well-being.

"There is now a lot of evidence, based on cross-national comparisons of inequality and economic growth, that more unequal societies actually have lower rates of economic growth. The divisiveness that comes out of large disparities in income and wealth, is actually reflected in poorer economic performance of a country. the high level of inequality results in less human capital being developed in this country, which ultimately affects economic performance."

In other words establishing the multi-national, too-big-to fail, wealth concentrating corporate model as the de-facto model of economic development is not sustainable.

But if selling out a company in this manner is not sustainable, what are the alternatives?

Bob Moore of Red Mill Natural Foods hit upon a solution. He sold out. To his employees. The program just unveiled this February gives his 209 employees full ownership of the business - one that produces and markets more than 400 whole-grain flours, cereals, and bread mixes.

He is not alone in choosing to go this route: King Arthur Flour Company of Vermont is employee owned as is W.W. Norton and more than 11,000 companies in the United States. In fact, an April 2006 International Labor Organization (ILO) World of Work Magazine article says that a growing body of research shows that employee owned companies are successful both in business terms and more widely applicable than most suspect. In addition, because employees are embedded both in the business and in the communities which they work (unlike distant executives at the top of most giant corporations), the willingness to increase profits despite the negative effects on their community are lessened. A 2002 study by the Ohio Employee Ownership Center shows that communities with high rates of employee ownership score higher on fifteen of seventeen quality of life measures, ranging from crime to education, measures communities, than communities without such ownership.

It's not that employee owned is a panacea- United Airlines was employee owned before its collapse in 2003 - but rather that they seem to lend themselves more suitably towards creating sustainable, livable communities. And that is something worth paying attention to.

Development 'Assistance': Go Away! No, stay!

Sara Wolcott — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 09:09:42 GMT

Last week I wrote a post on 'Is 'Development' a declining industry?'. The comments on that post have raised an important critique: outsiders should not come in and give pre-scripted advice (especially advice with money or guns attached to it if one does not comply) to countries. They suggest that sustainable development means leaving it to the local people to figure it out themselves - 'assistance' should only come when it is asked for.

There are some excellent examples around the world of organisations who do just that - and who get wonderful results for sustainable development. One of my favorites is the Highlander Research and Education Center in Tennessee. It has one of the best track records I know - 75 years of advancing development in the USA. It was at the front of the labour movement waaaaaay back in the day, and later became one of the hot houses for the civil rights movement, supporting such change-makers as Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King and Pete Seeger. These days, they continue to work on race relations, mountain top removal, and other pressing issues in the deep south. They have a very strict policy - they will not move into an issue or a community without first being asked to do so by the members of that community. Nor will they tell that community or concern what to do.

Indeed, I don't know very many people who will actively disagree with that idea. The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness in 2003 - signed by every OECD country - included an attempt to do that - to insist that country 'ownership' of any development plan was crucial. It was supposed to make ODA demand-led, not supply-driven.

But system has been developed that works a certain way, and all sides have come to at least mostly accept (with complaints) their respective roles - changing it is easier said than done. DfID recently tried to pull out of Brazil much more strongly - and met with strong resistance from their local partners, who knew that if Britain left, many of the programmes they'd been depending on would leave, and they did not trust their government to fill the gap. When DFID says, yes, but if we stay, your government will continue to fail to provide you with these services because we are doing it, they say, we know that, but that will take a long time (if ever) and you are here now. And what about the British tax payer - does she want immediate relief over long term country-ownership?

And who really knows best? Well, of course the people in the country... sometimes. Sometimes outsiders really can see more clearly than insiders - and the insiders might not know enough to know that. As anyone who has had a good therapist or a good doctor knows, it is often a tense and challenging process to figure out whose knowledge counts - and how. People often resist figuring out the answers for themselves - or dont know what is the critical piece of knowledge that they already have that can be used in a given situation. 'Assisting' other people is always more of an art form than a science, and there are precious few individuals- much less organisations - who really have it down. So I agree - sustainable Development Assistance should be demand-led. It should involve more listening than talking, and no blueprints. But doing that - and doing it well - is something we have not, collectively (on all sides), learned to do - nor does the system in which we work support it.

The Bitter Business of Chocolate Production

Kendra Pierre-Louis — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:47:31 GMT

As I write this I have a double batch of brownies baking in the oven. Nothing, after all, is better than a batch of fresh baked browniesnothing, perhaps, except said brownies couched under a hefty scoop of vanilla ice cream and double whipped cream.

Unfortunately, the key ingredient in brownies - chocolate -has a distinctly unsustainable source flying strongly in the face of 'business better'. If we're going to borrow the oft cited CSR definition of sustainability, that is planet, people, and profits, chocolate is only good at one: profits, and even then only for the manufacturing overlords whose names we often see on the labels.

What's hidden behind the pretty packaging of Hershey, Nestle, and Cadbury is a legacy of literal slavery, child labor and environmental degradation. In West Africa it's not uncommon for children to be kidnapped to work in the fields. They are beaten to keep them docile, those who try to escaped are beaten even worse, and occasionally, children are killed. Most never see their families again.

In an interview with The Food Revolution Documentary filmmaker Brian Woods who has covered the chocolate fields in the Ivory Coast states:

"It isn't the slavery we are all familiar with and which most of us imagine was abolished decades ago. Back then, a slave owner could produce documents to prove ownership. Now, it's a secretive trade which leaves behind little evidence. Modern slaves are cheap and disposable. They have three things in common with their ancestors. They aren't paid, they are kept working by violence or the threat of it, and they are not free to leave."

Approximately 60 percent of the worldwide cocoa production comes from West Africa, with 40% of the beans harvested from plantations in the Ivory Coast, a particularly problematic country for abuse.

As Canadian investigative reporter Carol Off details in her book Bitter Chocolate: The Dark Side of the World's Most Seductive Sweet, conventional cocoa production involves large-scale use of fertilizers, insecticides and other chemicals that degrade air, land and water. The struggle to control market share often involves payments to armed thugs and corrupt government officials to ensure the raw product reaches port. Efforts to reveal the truth about cocoa production can leave behind a bloody trail: in April 2004 French-Canadian journalist Guy André Kieffer, was kidnapped in broad after his reports of governmental corruption, including siphoning off and laundering the fees and taxes imposed on cocoa farmersmoney that ended up in the hands of prominent Ivorian officialshit the air. He hasn't been seen since.

Human rights abuses? Check. Environmental degradation? Check. A populace blind to the suffering their consumption is causing? Double check. As long as this kind of wholesale slavery, environmental degradation, occurs what hope is there for these nations to develop their ecosystems, their systems of equality and, well, sustainability?

This is a big deal because trade agreements between developed and developing countries for the most part only allow developing countries to export commodities. If they are unable to get a fair price for the few products they can export, what hope do they have of elevating their economies within the traditional economic paradigm?

So what is a chocoholic with a conscience to do?

The first step is to recognize that cacao production doesn't have to be so awful.

A 2007 edition of NPR's morning Edition entitled How Chocolate Can Save the Planet shows that cocoa farming can be sustainable. In the piece it talks about how cocoa farming using a method called cabruca, in which cacao trees are grown under the canopy of larger rainforests, cannot only reduce the rate of forest degradation, but also possible revitalize rainforest land that was lost. Although the process gets fewer trees to the acre it avoids many of the drawbacks of planting cacao trees on open land: fewer diseases, fewer insects.

The second is to vote with your dollars. Purchase Fair Trade Organic Chocolate or sustainably grown chocolate. Ideally you'd get single sourced chocolate that can be traced back to a specific farm or region. We're fortunate: there are a wide number of more ethical alternatives, but the fact remains as long as the market mechanism is there for products grown in this manner, they will continue to be grown. Chocolate after all is a luxury not a necessity and it is the bitterest bit of irony that those who sacrifice their very lives to bring it to us never get to sample its sweet essence.

Finally, write your favorite chocolate makers and tell them you refuse to purchase their conventional projects, explain why, and tell them you'll exhort your friends to do the same.

Prefabulous!

Andrea Brennen — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 12:59:12 GMT

In my last post, I mentioned how it often seems that "prefab" is conflated with "green" when it comes to sustainable home design. While I definitely don't buy that one implies the other, there are, nevertheless, a number of recent projects that exemplify both. Here are 3 of the coolest examples.

Global Sustainable Home [GSH]: Self-sufficient Prefab

Greggory Cates and John Farag's Global Sustainable Home is constructed from factory-built components [sectional pieces] and can be assembled in about a week. Typically, pre-fab homes are constructed atop a site-constructed foundation, but the GSH's foundation is built from a series of [also prefab] helical piers that can be installed with minimal disruption to the site.

Prefab is only part of what makes this project green. A pv canopy shades the house while generating 100kWh of electricity per day [assuming it's installed within 30 degrees of the equator and the weather is nice]. The GSH also comes equipped with dry-composting toilets and an internal grey-water potable system, to which sinks and showers are connected. It seems that the GSH takes the logic of prefab beyond manufacturing components, to include the water and sewer services, allowing the structure to be surprisingly self-sufficient.

Green critique: One-size-fits-all design mentality isn't adaptable to site-specific circumstances, meaning that the structure doesn't respond to local cultural, economic, or environmental conditions.

weeHouse: Really small [and beautiful!] Prefab

Alchemy Architects's line of "weeHouses" blend custom, site-specific design with off-site construction. Beautifully detailed and hand-crafted pre-fab modules are combined and modified in interesting ways, depending on individual client needs and site constraints. Designed with passive heating/cooling in mind, the modules can be hooked in to existing utility lines or outfitted for renewable energy use. The new "wee ZERO" prototype boasts pvs for the generation of electricity, solar thermal collectors to radiant floor and hot water heating, rainwater collection and the option of geothermal heat. However, their greenest feature might be the size; adhering to the philosophy "the greenest square foot is the one you don't build" the weeHouse studio weighs in at 400 square feet. While it certainly sets a new standard for high design in compact spaces, it might not work for everyone.

miniHome: Greenest prefab trailer.

Sustain Design Studio argues that the greenest prefab building alternative isn't a traditional building at all, but rather, a mobile dwelling more akin to an RV. The folks there remind us that RV's and Trailers "have a long history of operating 'off-the-grid' - typically in 'camp-like' environments" and the lack of permanent foundation means minimal impact on the land.

The miniHome is built with rigorous material standards in mind; the finished products boast no vinyl, no formaldehyde, no toxic adhesives or finishes, all water- or plant-based finishes, no CFC's or HCFC's, woods from certified sustainable sources, high natural ventilation rate, durability, and low-maintenance. Sustain Design Studio credits the high material and quality standards to the prefabrication process. The miniHome is also outfitted with solar panels and an optional 400Watt wind turbine. Propane, the favorite RV fuel option, is used to power heavy thermal loads like the furnace, refrigerator, and hot water heater.

Downsides? As cool as the miniHome sounds, it's still a trailer. While personally, I love camping and could definitely see myself moving into an RV, it would be remiss to ignore the fact that there is, certainly, a stigma attached to living in a trailer. Positive press regarding new sustainable prefab options is, perhaps, doing something to dispel that stigma by creating an alternative that is far superior to its lower quality cousin, the single-wide. However, these newer greener options are also not as affordable as a traditional mobile home.

Next time, the coolest new idea in prefab: Blu Homes that fold for easier shipping!

The Green Prefab myth?

Andrea Brennen — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 01:15:08 GMT

It seems like every day I read another article about the newest, greenest, most sustainable prefab home. My next few posts will take on the idea of prefab - looking at some notable examples, but first, here are some of the ideas behind this trend.

What is Prefab?

Prefab, short for prefabrication, refers to a construction technique where parts of the building are manufactured and assembled in a facility before they are transported to the building site. Although the term is used quite commonly today, especially in reference to sustainable building and green design trends, it incorporates a number of different techniques and practices. Perhaps the most important common aspect of these practices is that they differ from conventional home construction [i.e. bringing materials to site and constructing the building there.] Although often times, "prefab" also refers to the style of appearance of the house, implying a "modernist" appearance or aesthetic.

Why is Prefab [assumed to be] sustainable?

The idea behind prefab construction is the logic of the assembly line -- the assumption that mass-producing building components in a factory will save time and money. Fewer skilled workers are needed onsite and prefab buildings can be built much more quickly than those that are conventionally produced, allowing for an earlier financial return and minimizing the time potentially spent in bad weather/hazardous conditions at the building site.

Other benefits include the following: the quality control of building components can [theoretically] be maintained at a higher standard, skilled labor can be localized in one place and exported elsewhere, and manufacturing can be centralized where the cost of labor, materials, and energy are cheapest. Additionally, the production of standardized parts means less waste, which is also intended to cut costs.

So, as the theory of mass production goes, prefab equals cheaper.

Does Prefab mean Green?

Yes, and no.

There are a number of examples of prefab homes which, I would argue, are pretty green. However, I would be weary of claims such as those made on prefabs.com: "Prefab = Green! Building a prefab home is earth friendly. Prefabrication techniques reduce waste, offer energy-saving designs and improve manufacturing and construction efficiencies."

First of all, the energy saved in the manufacturing process must be weighed against that used in transporting the prefab components to the site, which, depending on the size and the location, can be incredibly expensive and energy intensive. Second, the logic of prefab construction relies on an assumption that there is an optimal building system, configuration, and fabrication technique that does not depend on local knowledge, vernacular building practices, site specific constraints, individual desires, or personalized craftsmanship.

There is certainly an argument to be made that more efficient means more sustainable, but there is also a counter argument against this one-size-fits-all mentality -- that green design should reflect the vernacular traditions of a particular place, account for specific site constraints and atypical conditions, and result in buildings that are embedded within a local economic structure.

Next time:

A survey of some green prefab homes.

South Africa struggles with the reality of land reform

Sara Wolcott — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:59:03 GMT

South Africa is much in the news these days - and much of it is positive. The country which suffered under apartheid less than 20 years ago is now a thriving emerging economy, looking forward with great pride and anticipation to hosting the World Cup, and President Zuma seems to be largely enjoying his State Visit to the UK - snide commentaries from much of the UK media about his polygamy aside.

But back at home, the challenges of land reform is raising its head - again. Hardly a surprise - land reform in developing countries is one of the most critical elements of sustainable development. Some say that is true in the developed world as well - but those voices are more marginal. And as it becomes increasingly clear that agriculture - long dismissed from dominant international development circles as unimportant - is a clear and strong pathway out of poverty, land ownership, land rights and land use is one of the most critical spaces for the triple-p (people-planet-profit) of sustainable development.

For South Africa, one of the major challenges is how to put land - farmland - into the hands of 'the people' (specifically black people) who do not necessarily have the capacity or experience of farming at the same level of production as the white people who owned the land prior to 1994. At that point, 90% of the land was owned by the white community who made up less than 10% of the population. The government had set a target of 2014 as a time when 1/3 of the land would be redistributed to the black majority. In 2009, that was at less than 6%. And now it is going back on that promise.

Their reason: of those farms which have been given back to the black majority, 90% are not profitable. As a result, the state is loosing revenue. The state is clearly not happy about this - and is now instituting a 'use it or loose it' policy. But one has to wonder what else is going on - are those farmers really getting the support they need to learn how to use the land? Keeping land in the hands of whites may make for greater production in the long term, but it is unlikely to lead to a landed populace - and risks future unrest. If black ownership does not lead to productive land, a hard question becomes, what would help the people the most - taking back the land (and thus, for many, their sense of identity, culture, ownership, and their livlihood and their immediate pathway out of poverty) and giving it to those who are familiar with what is needed to make it productive - or putting greater investments into building farmers capacity to use the land well?

New faces of Development: growing older

Sara Wolcott — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 11:52:59 GMT

The classic - and much bemoaned and critiqued - mental image of the developing world is of a woman carrying a baby and a pot of water or wood on her head. In different variations, it has served as a rallying cry to give donations to large and small organisations, and, for others, is a testimony to the physical, mental and spiritual strength of women the world over. Regardless of your opinion of this image (it certainly doesn't capture most African women I've met) something is shifting on the ground, though it has yet to catch up to the images of development - or indeed what it means to pursue sustainable development. The global population is both a) getting younger and b) getting older.

In Africa, it is common that in many countries, at least 40% of the population is below age 15. In Uganda, its over 50%. This is a result of wars, migration and epidemics - not least AIDS, which has wiped out significant portions of the adult population. This has been a well documented trend in recent years, and has gained a fair amount of attention - often, it lies at the heart of analysis on some of the rise of youth violence and social exclusion and political unrest - not only lots of young people, but a lack of clear role models and close family relationships to ease them into adulthood.

But there is another trend, much noted in the US and UK, but which is increasingly effecting the developing and emerging markets- an increase in old people. What is of importance to any understanding of poverty and vulnerability and thus to any real attempt to tackle sustainable development is not the raw numbers of the aging population but that they are often located in rural areas, are poor, and have few social protections.

China is a splendid example. Its economic growth and modernisation has led to young people leaving the rural communities and migrating to the cities - leaving behind parents and relatives who invariably grow older (and the average life span is increasing). They are not necessarily growing wealthier- though many receive both pensions and support from family in the urban areas. According to a report in the journal Mental Health in 2009, many of China's 20 million pensioners are lonely. The numbers have doubled from 1992 to 2000. The collectivised system that was the heart of Mao's rural Communist China meant a high level of social integration and livelihood engagement for all. Life was less competitive, slower, and there were long discussions at collective meetings, most of which no longer happen. People were engaged with their community an d, to some extent, their destiny. Now, many are wealthier - and more isolated. Its a familiar plight for many in the West - but as we worry about the economic challenges of supporting pensioners, let us not forget that sustainable development includes the social - the human - aspect as well.

Is 'Development' a declining industry?

Sara Wolcott — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 20:44:50 GMT

Today, I heard an interchange between two distinguished professors that raised the question 'is 'development' a declining industry' to a new level. Usually, that argument is supported by dragging out the stats which say that poverty and hunger and inequality are not doing very well, and aid agencies, which have taken on these large societal challenges with less than 0.7% of government's budgets and with many semi-supportive NGOs and a few businesses, are, clearly, failing. Sustainable development - where? Not for many of the poor and marginalised the world over. But this conversation was looking at it from a different perspective.

The panel discussion was on 'reimagining development' by some of the many notable cool professors at the Institute of Development Studies at Sussex, where I work. All are hands-on academics - people who continually seek to put theory into practice, and vice versa. One fellow painted a picture of some bilateral aid agencies he has been working with recently. He described them as 'eager to learn' in a quickly changing world. He said they were continually seeking new concepts, frameworks and tools to understand their world; that there was a sense of so much happening - too fast to keep up, and that people were running around, not sure what to do. The desire to measure the impact of their precise action in a wide, complex system was not only ridiculous, but spoke to a sense of a loss of control.

The fellow sitting next to him re-phrased what he had just said, and then suggested, 'well, it sounds like all the signs of a declining industry that is desperately grasping for new ideas to save its skin.'

No one really challenged that - indeed, there seemed general agreement that these bilateral agencies were flailing - they are loosing their power in a world where emerging markets are gaining international and national strength, where Europe seems to be in danger of real long term decline, and where there is an end to the illusion of abundance - including their own ability to have funds. 'Value' seems as much about 'value for money' as about the 'values' that we can live our lives by.

Of course, one of the greatest challenges to the old fashioned development industry isn't the emerging markets or the financial crisis - its climate change, and the glaring fact that we can not escape: western development has had a very negative impact on the whole ecosystem. We now must pay - not charity, but for damages done.

Or else... well, its not clear what the 'else' is. And I'm not sure if Overseas Development Aid is, as of yet, in full decline. But the current models don't work and are becoming older and staler by the hour. Agencies are indeed grasping. But whether that grasp will be transformative and create a reconstruction of the industry that will enable it to really address poverty and inequality or if those ventures will go to other sectors, it is still too early to say.

Photo credit: Cyclamax

Innovative Fish Farming

Kendra Pierre-Louis — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 15:23:21 GMT

Sushi lovers, the health conscious and pescatarians have been hearing for awhile that we're rapidly approaching global fish collapse. Estimates say that by 2048 if we continue to consume fish from the ocean at current (or increasing rates) there will no longer be enough fish in the sea for us to consume.

Enter in fish farming a process which takes raising fish out of the seas, allowing us to raise selected fish species in a confined environment and, thus, theoretically giving the seas a chance to recur.

Unfortunately, fish farming has often proven itself as detrimental to the environment and to the fish species it's supposed to replace/support.

Open net-cage salmon farming, for example, in which the fish are in pens along the shore, have been shown to be particularly susceptible to diseases which jump to wild salmon when they inevitably escape. Even if the fish don't escape the free-swimming stage of the louse allows it to migrate from an infested farm area to nearby wild areas.

In addition, raising fish in such a confined environment leads to many of the same environmental problems that we've discovered in confined feed lot operations: crowded condition in salmon farms leads to farmers using antibiotics and pesticides in an attempt to control diseases, parasites and other problems. These chemicals inevitably pollute the surrounding ocean area.

Into the void of dwindling fish stocks on the one hand and environmentally polluting fish on the other hand steps the recirculating aquaculture systems from the nonprofit Conservation Fund's Freshwater Institute. Recirculating aquaculture systems, or RAS, are closed-loop production systems that continuously filter and recycle water, enabling large-scale fish farming that requires a small amount of water and releases little or no pollution. They are supposedly as efficient at producing large amounts of fish, but cleaner than traditional aquaculture. Although they require a capital intensive start up, which makes lenders cautious; they are beginning to catch the attention of investors.

This may make environmentally conscious fish eaters everywhere rejoice.

Sustainable Hawai'i

Kendra Pierre-Louis — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 11:15:54 GMT

Hawaii, the most fossil fuel dependent state in the United States, is determined to become its most sustainable state. Its goal, according to the Hawai'i Clean Energy Initiative home page, is to transform Hawai'i into a world model for energy independence and sustainability with the goal of meeting 70% of Hawai'i's energy needs with clean energy by 2030.

While other states are still debating whether or not we can afford to mitigate the effects of climate change, Hawai'i has stopped hemming and hawing and today, a mere two years into their initiative they've already made noticeable gains.

A state law passed last year calls for at least 10 percent of electricity sales to come from renewable energy sources by the end of this year, and 15 percent by 2015. The state has laid down much of the groundwork for additional renewable power to come online while state regulators are weighing how much to pay businesses and individuals who contribute power to the electrical grid, and Hawai'i now leads the nation in solar water heating.

So what is firing Hawai'i's Sustainability initiative? Pragmatism.

Hawai'i imports oil to provide some 90% of its energy supplies costing it as much as $7 billion dollars a year. T is a significant amount of money to have leave the economic system., and an amount that is likely to rise if the threats of peak oil ring true. Converting to renewable energy keeps more of that money into the local environment.

In addition, Hawai'i is a sustainable developers dream. It has the perfect climate to take advantage of wind, solar and geothermal energy technologies, while home designs can be reasonably retrofitted to take advantage of passive cooling technologies greatly reducing the need for air conditioning. Finally, Hawai'i's natural beauty is unsurpassed and evident from nearly everywhere on the islands: there is a very visceral idea of what they are working to protect and what climate change could destroy.

How successful Hawai'i will be in the long term remains to be seen - they are experiencing push back from the residents of Lanai who don't want a large wind farm built there to benefit residents of Honolulu, while environmentalists are arguing that the undersea transmission line to carry electricity from Lanai to Honolulu isn't necessary - but that they're boldly trying to bring about wide ranging change is something that more states and nations could learn from.