Original Message:
Sent: 11-16-2017 01:29
From: Edward Mazria
Subject: Broad Set of Principles...
Dennis,
Thanks for your reply.
First, as far as I'm concerned, an honest dialog on this subject is healthy.
Regarding your comments. I'd consider myself a realist; "alarmist" is a loaded word. I don't think I made any accusations in my last post (sorry you took it that way). What I did write was that:
"Your statements on this thread seem to be right out of the fossil fuel playbook on climate change."
I used the qualifier seem, because it did seem that way to me.
FYI, the graphic you posted as a justification for
"even if we eliminate 100% of the little red chip (looks black on the attached graphic), it wouldn't change the big picture, so why spin our wheels?"
was created by the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) and published by the Heritage Foundation (in the Daily Signal). The NCPA, was (now defunct) a climate denial organization, and the Heritage Foundation is a conservative think-tank notorious for undermining the science behind climate change. I find the graphic misleading. Why?
CO2 fossil fuel emissions are indeed just over 3% of the total CO2 emissions by all sources annually (the little red chip you refer to) – there are about 26 GtCO2 of emissions from burning fossil fuels, and 770 GtCO2 of natural emissions from land and sea (plus very small amounts from land use and volcanoes).
However, what the graph intentionally leaves out is that natural emissions are balanced by natural absorption annually. So, what happens when more CO2 is emitted from fossil fuels outside of the natural emissions cycle? While the 26 GtCO2 is tiny compared to the 770 GtCO2 emitted naturally each year, it adds up, because about 15 GtCO2 remains in the atmosphere (not absorbed), and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 has increased 45%, or130ppm, since the Industrial Revolution, and is now at 410ppm, something not seen in 15 to 20 million years.
We have upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 emissions has created an artificial forcing raising global average temperature and with it an increase in flooding, heat waves, drought, coral bleaching, air pollution, sea level rise, etc. As I said in my last post,
there is still time to address climate change if we peak global CO2 emissions by 2020 and phase out all fossil fuels by 2050.
I believe these are more accurate graphics:
------------------------------
Edward Mazria FAIA
Founder And Executive Director
Architecture 2030
Santa Fe NM
Original Message:
Sent: 11-15-2017 07:08
From: Dennis Wells
Subject: Broad Set of Principles...
Ed,
Thanks for your message. (And let me say I'm one of your earliest fans. It must have been in 1979 when I devoured your Passive Solar Energy Book. It was a game-changer. I still have the marked-up and tattered remains, along with the clear plastic inserts. Thank you for your excellent work!)
My statement didn't have a source. I thought we didn't know the answer, though I did assume that humankind's CO2 contribution didn't outweigh nature's contribution. After a bit of research, I found the answer: We only contribute a small percentage of total atmospheric CO2 (see attached graphic).
It seems that even if we eliminate 100% of the little red chip (looks black on the attached graphic), it wouldn't change the big picture, so why spin our wheels?
Frankly, I think the IPPC's goal is to bring America back to pre-industrial conditions and let China and India run wild (which are predominately pre-industrial). I've heard that their projected increases in CO2 emissions are larger than even the most optimistic possible decreases in the US and Europe. Seems like an uphill battle. That's why I think we should promote preparation, resiliency, and adaptation in architecture… not prevention. If the ship is sinking, fix the ship, not the ocean!
However, I'm guessing your RCP Graphs prove differently. Let's assume it's possible to reach RCP6.0 or 4.5 via a concerted, global effort. I would then agree that Net Zero architecture could contribute to that effort. But global warming will still progress. Resilient planning and architecture will be more valuable to us in the long run.
Ed, I'm just an architect... I'm not a minion of the fossil fuel meanies. I'm asking genuine questions and using my own logic and reason. As stated above, I'm open to learning. Your accusations make me sound like a mind-numbed-robot, and make you sound like a group-think alarmist. If the COTE can't accommodate thought diversity, I'll be happy to leave...
------------------------------
Dennis Wells AIA
VP-Studio Director
Miles Associates Incorporated
Oklahoma City OK
Original Message:
Sent: 11-14-2017 16:44
From: Edward Mazria
Subject: Broad Set of Principles...
Also,
The fossil fuel playbook on climate change was to first deny that climate change existed (sow confusion and ask for equal time in the media)...
It's not happening.
And, after an El Nino year, 1998, when the planet's temperature broke all records (cherry pick that year), and claim from 2000 to 2005 that...
the planet's cooling (sow more confusion – the planet surpassed the 1998 temperature in 2005).
Then when the science was overwhelming and the global average temperature record was set again...
deny it's us (the climate is always changing, Inhofe (R-OK) brings a snowball to the Senate).
Then it was...
yes the climate is changing, we have a role, but were not sure how much.
And, now that global average temperature records have been set in 2010, 2014, 2015, and 2016, and there has been record flooding, heat waves, drought, coral bleaching, air pollution, sea level rise, etc., it's...
the warming is locked in, there is not much we can do about it, so we must focus on adaptation and resilience.
All of this so we keep burning fossil fuels. Of course we know that there is still time to address climate change if we peak global CO2 emissions by 2020 and phase out all fossil fuels by 2050 (see graphs in the previous post).
Your statements on this thread seem to be right out of the fossil fuel playbook on climate change:
"I do have grandchildren. When they ask me what to do about climate change, I say "adapt."
"Preparation, "resilience," is infinitely smarter than prevention."
"It's settled science: If 100% of man-caused CO2 were eliminated, climate change would still occur. If humanity were terminated, climate change would still happen."
"One of the many things we still don't know is, what portion of total planetary CO2 production is anthropomorphic?"
------------------------------
Edward Mazria FAIA
Founder And Executive Director
Architecture 2030
Santa Fe NM
Original Message:
Sent: 11-14-2017 12:59
From: Edward Mazria
Subject: Broad Set of Principles...
Dennis,
Can you please site a source(s) for your statement:
One of the many things we still don't know is, what portion of total planetary CO2 production is anthropomorphic?
Also the degree of climate change, from manageable to catastrophic, and whether we can bring the planet back to pre-industrial levels, will very much depend on what we (the architecture and building community) do today (see attachments). I'd change your final statement to read:
A hundred years from now they'll be saying: "…it's amazing they wasted so much time and effort trying to stop had the wisdom, foresight and courage to address climate change!"
Ed
Architecture 2030
------------------------------
Edward Mazria FAIA
Founder And Executive Director
Architecture 2030
Santa Fe NM
Original Message:
Sent: 11-10-2017 11:25
From: Dennis Wells
Subject: Broad Set of Principles...
Margaret,
I accept that "pollutant" has a broad definition. (National Geographic has also probably said that water is the main pollutant to a drowning person.)
You're right to say there's much we still don't know. One of the many things we still don't know is, what portion of total planetary CO2 production is anthropomorphic? Ned Cramer recently said: "Even if humanity was to immediately stop releasing CO2, the climate would continue to change because the greenhouse gases that we have already dumped into the atmosphere could take millennia to dissipate." ARCHITECT OCT. 2017
I'm proud that the architecture community is finally beginning to shift its focus from prevention to preparation ("resiliency"). Why waste valuable resources to prevent the unpreventable? Yes, it still makes sense to reduce toxicity, increase sustainability, and strive toward architectural utopia. But those things won't affect climate change. Net-Zero is a laudable concept that's good for the environment, but ineffective in preventing climate change. It's much smarter to prepare for the impending changes. Let's be honest with ourselves.
I agree with you that our profession is still in a primitive stage of development. A hundred years from now they'll be saying: "…it's amazing they wasted so much time and effort trying to stop climate change!"
------------------------------
Dennis Wells AIA
VP-Studio Director
Miles Associates Incorporated
Oklahoma City OK
Original Message:
Sent: 11-09-2017 18:21
From: Margaret Montgomery
Subject: Broad Set of Principles...
I've been following this dialogue as an observer, but perhaps it's time to participate.
National Geographic puts the CO2 as pollutant position succinctly: "Carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, is the main pollutant that is warming Earth. Though living things emit carbon dioxide when they breathe, carbon dioxide is widely considered to be a pollutant when associated with cars, planes, power plants, and other human activities that involve the burning of fossil fuels such as gasoline and natural gas. In the past 150 years, such activities have pumped enough carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to raise its levels higher than they have been for hundreds of thousands of years."
Carbon may be shorthand for carbon dioxide, but "carbon neutral" has been recognized in the OED at least since it was "Word of the Year" in 2006 (arguably phrase of the year, I admit). You don't have to use the term, but it has definitely escaped into the wild as common usage.
Dennis, we have learned a lot in the past decade! The most important thing we have learned is just how much we don't know about what we are doing. We are, as a human society and more specifically as a profession, still in a primitive stage of development.
When we have learned enough that we know exactly what is in each product we specify and that it is non-toxic, biodegradable and only used in quantities supported by the natural systems within which we operate, when we are able to thrive using only current resources that are replenished at the same rate at which we are using them, when everything we inhabit contributes at least as much as we have consumed to the health and wellbeing of our surrounding ecosystem its other species, when we have fully re-integrated natural systems and nature itself into our built environment for our collective wellbeing, THEN we can rest comfortable that we're doing the best we can. Until then, we have an exciting and important challenge ahead of us.
And sorry, I don't miss the new building smell. Recent research shows us that it lowers our ability to respond to crisis, use information and think strategically. I personally need all the help I can get!
------------------------------
Margaret Montgomery FAIA
Principal
NBBJ Seattle Office
Seattle WA
Original Message:
Sent: 11-09-2017 15:49
From: Dennis Wells
Subject: Broad Set of Principles...
Thomas,
It's been many years since toxic and VOC emitting products have been available to the construction industry. Long before COTE's call for a stronger stance. (I'm glad car designers haven't been subjected to similar pressures… We'd miss that new-car-smell!) But you're right… they've appeared in my older projects.
I agree with your admonition that we can all do better. However, in a profession where details and accuracy count, I take issue with misrepresenting carbon dioxide as "carbon." They're two different things. (It's the specifier in me talking.)
A 100% non-toxic built environment will be a wonderful thing. We'll probably get there someday. However, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, and "zero-carbon" is the angel of a false religion. It's a laudable goal to steer architecture toward minimal environmental impact, and I practice doing so. I just prefer to do it in a more intellectually honest way.
You must admit you miss that new-building-smell! (Sorry for not drinking the cool aide.)
------------------------------
Dennis Wells AIA
VP-Studio Director
Miles Associates Incorporated
Oklahoma City OK
Original Message:
Sent: 11-08-2017 17:45
From: Thomas Bassett-Dilley
Subject: Broad Set of Principles...
Dennis,
You and I, like all architects, have designed buildings that contained some toxicity like from materials with formaldehyde and other VOCs; buildings that used energy from coal power plants that contributed greenhouse gases, sulfur dioxide, arsenic, lead, etc. to, in my case, the Great Lakes and local watersheds; and so on. It's possible now to design buildings that don't do these things. In your 41 design years, were all your projects Living Buildings? If not, you could do better. So could I. I applaud COTE and all architects who lead toward a zero-carbon, non-toxic built environment. A stronger stance is needed because we're the ones who can best demonstrate how it can be done, and I for one want to look back and know I did everything I could to make a better environment.
------------------------------
Thomas Bassett-Dilley AIA
Principal
Tom Bassett-Dilley Architect, Ltd.
Oak Park IL
Original Message:
Sent: 11-07-2017 17:37
From: Dennis Wells
Subject: Broad Set of Principles...
Thanks for your reply Jonathan. I read all the documents you linked, and agree with the majority of the positions and values.
You mention that COTE felt a stronger stance was needed on the role architects play in creating environments that are healthy, inspiring, and ethically-designed. As I noted in my response to Carolyn, I've designed buildings for 41 years, and I can't think of one that wasn't healthy, and ethically-designed. "Inspiring" is subjective. (It's probable that my projects have inspired someone.) But I can't think of any examples of unhealthy, or unethically-designed architecture.
Why was this stronger stance required? Can you provide some examples of recent unhealthy or unethically-designed architecture?
------------------------------
Dennis Wells AIA
VP-Studio Director
Miles Associates Incorporated
Oklahoma City OK
Original Message:
Sent: 11-05-2017 13:53
From: Jonathan Penndorf
Subject: Broad Set of Principles...
The letter referred to was issued in late 2016/early 2017 as COTE felt we needed to take a stronger stance on the role architects play in creating environments that are healthy, inspiring, and ethically-designed. The principles (while paraphrased in the letter) can be found in more detail in a few locations:
COTE focuses most specifically on the sustainability and environmental values and principles that are held in these varied documents. The word "rights" isn't literally in each of these documents, but the bigger message is about the need for a more sustainable and equitable future, and the role architects can play in that.
------------------------------
Jonathan Penndorf FAIA
2016-2018 COTE Advisory Group
Project Manager/Sustainability Leader
Perkins + Will
Washington DC
Original Message:
Sent: 11-01-2017 17:05
From: Dennis Wells
Subject: Broad Set of Principles...
COTE's recent "What We Believe" letter says that certain rights are included in the broad set of principles under which we work. These rights are cultural rights, social rights, religious rights, and environmental rights.
Our legal rights are enumerated in the Bill of Rights. They're very specific and easy to understand.
It would be helpful to know what some of the rights mentioned in the COTE letter actually are. What are the specific cultural rights, social rights, religious rights, and environmental rights? I'd like to explain them to our interns. What are they?
For now, let's just focus on environmental rights... What are some of the environmental rights?
------------------------------
Dennis Wells AIA
VP-Studio Director
Miles Associates Incorporated
Oklahoma City OK
------------------------------