The term has been a buzz word in my circle for quite a long while now.

And to some extent, I think it may have meant many things to many different people, depending on your role or function in the bigger game of conducting our affairs in and around buildings.

For example, someone not long ago suggested they had done something under the "sustainable" program in switching foam coffee cups out for a more environmentally friendly option. She was right. Maybe not so much at the local steakhouse, but once in awhile.

(A friend, KellyJo blogged about sustainable beef not long ago) [1]

The term gets tossed around fairly like loose change amongst us building types, be it architects, engineers, building owners, folks in the energy biz, or skilled trades have all heard it in numerous trade journals, seminars, at the supply houses, and on the street.

In the building design, construction, and operations gig we are typically talking about energy related matters - often renewable such as solar or wind being part of the discussion. Other technologies to save energy are related to the conversation such as capturing waste heat, operational dynamics such as thermostat set back and lighting controls, and even precooling the thermal mass at night when energy is cheap (AKA load shifting), managing water resources, even such things as appliances, computers, printers, copiers and other plugged in type of loads.

We've all heard in the news that California and their Governor Schwarzenegger recently signed into law certain mandates RE the "Global Warming" threat and driving the building owners to reduce CO2. This really means the air conditioning load, which is really a conversation about the electric grid and power plants.

Unless California is now regulating the type of packaging materials the private sector is allowed to use? Stay tuned for a separate Blog on the state of energy regulatory process in California, although major parts of the program are to inspect homes and businesses for proper working HVAC equipment.

Does anyone remember the last time California deregulated (re-regulated) the electric power industry? Can anyone say ENRON, did anyone mention California IMPORTS A LOT of electricity? At the time California also mandated the public utilites sell off generating plants and limit their activites to distribution, and mandated wholesale purchase under long term fixed price contracts. I don't know about you but that sounds like meddling in the affairs of free enterprise in the most draconian terms.

This is also a trend across the country with various States and Cities getting on this CO2 band wagon, as the reduction mandate has not been pushed at the Federal level.

Along these lines also was the Kyoto Protocol, [2] a UN driven international treaty to mandate carbon emission reductions (CO2) to previous levels, that was signed or at east agreed to by many countries with the US being a hold out. The pros and cons, economic costs and associated equitable distribution of those costs, as well as the feasibility of the targets is still very much up for debate.

Optimistic news from 2002 [3]

Not so optimistic news from 2002 [4]

RE Current state of affairs from Europe, the trouble is that reality and promise don’t seem to be matched at the moment [5].

If you look carefully you will notice some progress has been made, but with significant cost to (customers and owners at various levels) - and although the targets may have not been met - there have been reported reductions in CO2.

In the US, where we are not a party to the Kyoto Protocol, one of the arguments is rooted in the cost benefit debate. The Clinton / Gore administration pushed for and backed the Protocol pretty much in the absence of any cost benefit or feasibility analysis from the Engineering or Capital markets. source [6].

The Bush Administration took the position our economy and energy infrastructure could not live up to the targets of the treaty so it didn't back it.

You may notice I called it like I see it, but I didn't take sides?

My point in this debate is this, even if we spent TRILLIONS, would it make a difference? Or better yet, how much how fast is prudent.

This is where a rational exercise of the art and science of opportunity cost is needed.

Remember when we (the US EPA) banned Asbestos in the absence of an engineering equivalent? The cost was the Space Shuttle blew up.

Power plants, buildings, boilers, chillers, our national electric grid, or economy are all machines subject to the laws of physics and economics - its just never that easy to turn a ship this size over night. Sorry, reality check.

So what can we do? The American Institute of Architects has the following idea: Source [7]

Quote:

Advocacy. Recent efforts have centered on the AIA "2030 Challenge"—a position statement that calls for the immediate energy reduction of all new and renovated buildings to half the national average for that building type, with increased reductions of 10 percent every five years so that all buildings designed by the year 2030 will be carbon-neutral (meaning that they will use no fossil fuel energy).

In June 2006, the US Conference of Mayors unanimously adopted the 2030 Challenge. [8]

End quote.

If we can design, build, and renovate our buildings into more efficient structures, maybe even healthier environments for living working and going to school - the impact on electrical generation and fossil fuel wold be HUGE.
Would be innovators? Not really, we're far behind other countries in many ways. But maybe we can also move faster and catch up?

Is it possible we are talking about sustainability of the enterprise?

Survival of our way of life?

What if we loose the Iranian and Venezuela oil overnight (or if the world market looses it)?

We can look at the consumer products we use and see if we can use the related resources smarter, smarter process, packaging, distribution - cut down on quantity?

We could also talk about sustainable fishing grounds in the oceans. Are the remaining good fishing grounds already beyond the points of no return? How about the whale population? How about agriculture topsoil and water resources?
How about the birds, bees, basic processes of pollination, flowers and rain forests?

The concept of sustainability is (or at least can be) rooted in the Earths process as a whole

GAIA?

Resources:

US Green Building Council LEED Program [9]

Smart Communities Network [10]

Quote from US DOE [11]

"Our dependence on foreign energy is like a foreign tax on the American people. It's a tax our citizens pay every day in higher gasoline prices and higher costs to heat and cool their homes. It's a tax on jobs and it's a tax that is increasing every year."

—President George W. Bush

Questions / comments / opinions ?