Committee on the Environment

 View Only

Community HTML

ALBION DISTRICT LIBRARY BY PERKINS + WILL IS A 2018 COTE TOP TEN RECIPIENT. IMAGE: DOUBLESPACE PHOTOGRAPHY

Quick Links

Who we are

The Committee on the Environment (COTE®) is an AIA Knowledge Community working for architects, allied professionals, and the public to achieve climate action and climate justice through design. We believe that design excellence is the foundation of a healthy, sustainable, and equitable future. Our work promotes design strategies that empower all AIA members to realize the best social and environmental outcomes with the clients and the communities they serve.

Enjoy our latest on COTE news (and follow us on X and LinkedIn). 

To learn about the Framework for Design Excellence (formerly the COTE Top Ten Measures), click here.

Check out COTE's history and timeline. 

Starting a local COTE or sustainability group and need some guidance? Check out the AIA COTE Network Resources here.

A big thank you to our 2024 sponsors: 
Founding sponsors: Building Green
Premier sponsors: Sherwin-Williams
Sustaining sponsors: GAF Roofing, Milliken, Andersen Windows,
BlueScope Buildings
Green sponsors: EPIC Metals
Allied sponsors: TLC Engineering, Sierra Pacific Windows

Expand all | Collapse all

Complaint to FEMA

  • 1.  Complaint to FEMA

    Posted 04-26-2018 03:42 PM

    Certain architects are concerned that FEMA is amending their Strategic Plan to remove a reference to climate change.  These architects believe that communal complaining will cause FEMA to straighten out and recite that climate change causes the emergencies they manage.  If the herd complains enough, maybe the government will change its mind! 

    News Flash:  Emergencies will continue to occur whether or not blame is assigned.  FEMA will continue to manage emergencies whether they are or aren't caused by climate change.  The eliminated language may be true but is meaningless to a Strategic Plan. 

    The complaint from the herd states: "Eliminating accurate data and causation (from the FEMA Strategic Plan) will severely impact our ability to meet client demands, fulfill our contractual obligations, and carry out the duties of our licensure to protect the public." 

    Oh please. 

    Read that quote again… Someone explain how this will severely impact our abilities.  Or just explain how it could possibly impact our abilities at all

    Think before you sign.



    ------------------------------
    Dennis Wells AIA
    Oklahoma City OK
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: Complaint to FEMA

    Posted 04-27-2018 12:25 PM
    FEMA's role is not limited to reacting to events after the fact.  They play a role in both response to emergencies that have already happened and taking actions to mitigate the damage that anticipated future emergencies may entail. (I've worked with FEMA people in both contexts.) For example, FEMA administers Hazard Mitigation grants to strengthen or modify buildings in flood-prone areas to reduce the cost of repairs in future anticipated events.  Furthermore, they administer the maps that determine areas we can't build in, and which areas will have higher flood insurance costs. 

    Given all that, it matters that FEMA is basing these forward-looking decisions on the best science, rather than pandering to political correctness of the right or left.  They need to base these plans on the best projections available for what's going to happen.  Presumably we'd like to avoid the situation that occurred in North Carolina where the state legislature, bowing to real estate development interests, passed a law limiting how much the sea could rise.    Such situations put design professionals in the uncomfortable position where protecting our client's interests based on what we know the science to be is at variance with government policy. We can choose to work with our clients to explain the risks ourselves on a project-by-project basis, but our jobs would be easier if the policies were aligned with the science.

    Even the revised wording under the current administration grudgingly acknowledges that things are changing ("Disaster costs are expected to continue to increase due to rising natural hazard risk..."); the policy writers have been directed (as they have been in other agencies) not to use the phrase "climate change" because it is a trigger word for some members of their political tribe.

    I signed this letter to FEMA.  I didn't agree with every single turn of phrase, but that's the same situation that applies whenever we choose to support a candidate or a referendum--we are indicating the direction we'd like to head.  We can have different opinions about which responses might be most effective given the changes that are underway, but I take this letter as a means of pushing back on the vaguely Soviet approach that says that if we delete all references to something, it doesn't exist.

    ------------------------------
    Z. Smith FAIA
    Principal
    Eskew+Dumez+Ripple Architects
    New Orleans LA
    ------------------------------



  • 3.  RE: Complaint to FEMA

    Posted 04-27-2018 03:59 PM

    Accurate writing is the "best science" of persuasive communication.    Not only is the letter to FEMA "bad science," it's clearly pandering to the left.  I wrote a letter directly to Brock Long noting that there is an equal number of principled architects who would agree with the change.  But because they're not subject to community organization he won't be receiving their communal letter of support.

    Thank you for your thoughtful reply.



    ------------------------------
    Dennis Wells AIA
    Oklahoma City OK
    ------------------------------



  • 4.  RE: Complaint to FEMA

    Posted 04-30-2018 08:42 PM

    Dennis, I'm curious what exactly are you trying to achieve with the criticisms you pose to the Committee on the Environment's Knowledge Committee discussion forum. 

    Do you take issue with how this letter is written and are advocating revision to such an extent that still supports "The Committee on the Environment (COTE) working to advance, disseminate, and advocate (emphasis mine)-to the profession, the building industry, the academy, and the public-design practices that integrate built and natural systems and enhance both the design quality and environmental performance of the built environment"? 

    While members of this committee may have differences of opinion regarding details of reconciliation between the profession and the environment, I would encourage you to revisit COTE - CommitteeontheEnvironment to be reminded of the fact that COTE and its membership "serve as the community and voice on behalf of AIA architects regarding sustainable design." Its an assumption on my part, but I suspect one would be hard pressed to dissuade this group as a whole from its purpose. 

    Since you disagreed with the letter, and you had a choice not to sign the letter, it would seem that you exercised what appears to be the most appropriate choice for you.



    ------------------------------
    Jason Hainline AIA, LEED Fellow
    Design Associate
    Dake Wells Architecture
    Springfield MO
    ------------------------------



  • 5.  RE: Complaint to FEMA

    Posted 05-01-2018 08:42 PM
    Edited by Dennis B. Wells 05-01-2018 08:43 PM

    Jason, I'm simply highlighting the inaccuracies and futility of the letter; and maybe I'll persuade a few architects to ignore it.  Yes, I take issue with how the FEMA complaint letter was written, and I take issue with the fact that most people who sign it don't understand how meaningless it is.  They probably feel good about their protest, but it's ineffective. 

    As a member of The COTE, I fully understand its mission and goals and agree with 98% of them.  I am a proponent of sustainable design.  I'm also a proponent of accuracy.  You might consider it anal, but I know others who appreciate accurate architects.  (Some of my pet inaccuracies: "Carbon" is not Carbon Dioxide, CO2 is not a pollutant, Climate Change is not caused by humankind, our ability to provide professional services is not damaged by removing the reference to climate change in the FEMA Plan, et cetera… the dogmatic belief in these fallacies deserves some push-back.) 

    For the most part, COTE is a valuable forum for advocating sustainability.   Sustainable architecture can easily be advocated and produced without promulgating fallacies.  Right or wrong, I feel compelled to speak my mind!



    ------------------------------
    Dennis Wells AIA
    Oklahoma City OK
    ------------------------------



  • 6.  RE: Complaint to FEMA

    Posted 05-02-2018 06:32 PM

    So Dennis, just say what you believe.  I'm not following your "pet inaccuracies"

    -Russ Ver Ploeg, AIA, LEED AP

    Des Moines, Iowa






  • 7.  RE: Complaint to FEMA

    Posted 05-05-2018 11:40 PM
    Thank you for the debate/thoughts.

    ------------------------------
    Nancy Perez Miller, AIA
    AR 17002 AA 3376
    NPMA LLC
    Florida Keys
    ------------------------------



  • 8.  RE: Complaint to FEMA

    Posted 06-28-2018 12:50 PM
    I think that the reason architects didn't sign the letter is because they didn't know about it. Perhaps it was a lack of publicity.

    While the claim about the letter impacting practice is a stretch, it's good to be concerned about a government that ignores science. Even if a letter won't make the government change its mind, I believe we should still stand up for what's right. 
    --









  • 9.  RE: Complaint to FEMA

    Posted 04-27-2018 06:31 PM
    Dennis,
    You couldn't be more wrong.  Removal of the language from the strategic plan also imperils research and funding for mitigation plans, state and local police and fire funding, the ability to obtain property insurance, and the government's response to disasters.
    The idea that somehow having someone to blame or not blame is irrelevant. Many of us who work in the public sector for local, state, and federal clients have a duty of care to our clients and the taxpayers to make responsible decisions that have life safety, environmental, and economic consequences on their behalf and the idea that we should put on a set of political blinders is frankly repulsive and goes against everything we stand for as architects.

    ------------------------------
    James R. Deane, AIA, CDT, LEED AP, PMP
    ------------------------------



  • 10.  RE: Complaint to FEMA

    Posted 04-27-2018 07:09 PM
    It is almost as though Mr. Wells' provocative post is a test. I can hardly believe that he is being sincere. I do appreciate his attempt to buck the (as he calls it) "herd". We creative-type individual thinkers prefer to do that. It is important for us to check ourselves and the basis of our decisions. But, as it is a scientific fact that human activity (particularly our use of fossil fuels) causes climate change and that climate change is the direct cause of certain physical disasters, emergencies, refuges, and so on, it behooves us in any and every circumstance, and especially as designers with our disproportionate professional relationship to resources, and as leaders in our communities to underscore these direct and frightening cause and effects, and particularly in the realm of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Certainly, FEMA will still respond to emergencies whether they officially make reference to "climate change" or not, but it is also likely that they prioritize emergencies according to categorizations. Furthermore the government DOES change its mind when enough people "complain". Politicians do (albeit not always, but often) heed their constituents desires. To erase references to human-caused climate change in regard to FEMA activities is not only a lightly veiled attempt to undermine scientists and others who are working urgently to build a wide and knowledge-based reaction to the facts that our addiction to fossil fuels is causing extreme and growing climate change that threatens our very existence, but it is also buying into a reactionary partisan fighting that does no good for any of us. Yes, FEMA will continue to respond to emergencies, but attention and resources might be channeled to help us avoid emergencies if and only if we are informed, aware, and designing to stop exacerbating an accelerated climate change. Have you never had a skeptical client say (as I had in Alaska) "Oh, right, you 'believe' in climate change"? How does that change the way they identify projects, finance projects, or grant approvals to aspects of projects? How often might they use a governmental example to support their economic inclinations and inertia? Even with grammatical references that, as Mr. Wells says, "FEMA will continue to manage emergencies whether they are or aren't caused by climate change.", I do not believe that "the eliminated language may be true but is meaningless to a Strategic Plan". It is meaningful. Architectural professionals can point to FEMA and other governmental policies to support their argument to clients, or funders, and others about how design decisions should be made. To ignore scientific fact (of which I hope he does not need resources or references, although I can supply many), or to not allow the proper definitions and terms to be used by governmental, political, educational, and public social organizations is to ignore and undermine our actions and consequences, and to make light of the direct connection of how our designs change lives. Perhaps Mr. Wells, considering a hard-to-fathom conservative momentum that has been granted voice and a sense of empowerment by the anti-science rhetoric of our current administration, I can only assume that the "herd" mentality to which you repeatedly make reference is your own.

    ------------------------------
    Mindy Cameron FAIA
    Architect
    Lehrman Cameron Studio
    Seattle WA
    ------------------------------



  • 11.  RE: Complaint to FEMA

    Posted 04-27-2018 08:04 PM
    I appreciate your skepticism,  but how do you think FEMA maps are drawn?  And hopefully updated. Science rather than mystery helps us respond to the exigencies of the site, design sensibly to protect our client's interests, and respond to the larger interests of resilience. 
    My best regards--Andy Vernooy

    ------------------------------
    Andrew Vernooy AIA
    Director
    Montana State University School of Architecture
    Bozeman MT
    ------------------------------



  • 12.  RE: Complaint to FEMA

    Posted 04-28-2018 06:34 AM

    Dennis Wells suggests that FEMA's actions on addressing emergencies are disengaged from an understanding of the causes of those emergencies and therefore have no bearing on its strategic planning direction.  That's similar to saying that the actions doctors take to treat a disease are disconnected from their understanding of the disease's causes and has no bearing on future medical strategy and funding.  This way leads to Parkinson's Law of Triviality or blindness to the elephant in the room.  FEMA's current emergency planning methodology is backward looking, while everything we know about climate change tells us that the future will be very different from the past, and climate models are becoming good enough to project regional changes in ways that could inform FEMA's strategic direction. 

     

    Massachusetts (where denial of climate change is no longer an option) is making an effort to integrate municipal vulnerability planning by looking both to the past and to the projected future: https://resilientma.com/about/ .  I think of it as integrative planning similar to the integrative design efforts that the COTE community has been working to instill in architectural practice.  In my view that is the definition of strategic planning, as opposed to business or operational planning.

     

    Ludmilla Pavlova-Gillham, AIA

    Amherst, MA

     

     






  • 13.  RE: Complaint to FEMA

    Posted 04-28-2018 07:53 PM
    Edited by Dennis B. Wells 04-29-2018 11:15 AM

    The climate has been and will be in flux forever, with or without fossil fuels.  This is irrefutable fact.  Humans and our nasty emissions did not cause climate change.  Denying this is denying reality.  Our nasty emissions do exacerbate climate change, but they, or we didn't cause climate change.  To profess otherwise is religious dogma, not science.  Calling people who deny anthropomorphic climate change "climate deniers" is inaccurate (and insulting).  But that's the nature of dogma, isn't it?

    It's this inaccuracy that hurts the sustainability cause.  If we weren't so damned dogmatic, and we acknowledged reality, others would see architects as rational professionals rather than the <g class="gr_ gr_64 gr-alert gr_spell gr_inline_cards gr_run_anim ContextualSpelling" id="64" data-gr-id="64">groupthinkers</g> we are. 

    The FEMA complaint letter is leftist groupthink, not rational discourse. 

    It's more rational for us to promote adaptation to climate change rather than prevention.  Kudos to the many jurisdictions that are changing regulations in response to the ongoing environmental changes.  Shame on those who blame us for it.



    ------------------------------
    Dennis Wells AIA
    Oklahoma City OK
    ------------------------------



  • 14.  RE: Complaint to FEMA

    Posted 05-03-2018 01:15 PM
    Dennis,
    As requested in some of you previous posts (see link below*), please site your sources.  In particular please state the source for your claim, "Humans and our nasty emissions did not cause climate change. [...] To profess otherwise is religious dogma, not science."  I'm enthusiastic to better understand what science you are referring to.  And perhaps state and factually explain the inaccuracies you observed when you claimed, "It's this inaccuracy that hurts the sustainability case."  It might be helpful to refrain from siting anything from the National Center for Policy Analysis and the Heritage Foundation as you did in previous threads that decontextualizes figures and strays from what is considered scientific rigor.  Previous replies seem to have provided plenty of relevant, non-biased, scientific data to refute their claims.    


    *Broad Set of Principles Discussion: View Thread


    ------------------------------
    Brian Alessi Assoc. AIA
    Sustainable Design Studio Leader
    The Sheward Partnership
    Philadelphia, PA
    ------------------------------



  • 15.  RE: Complaint to FEMA

    Posted 05-03-2018 05:09 PM

    Brian,

    During the millennia before human's nasty emissions began, climate change happened.  A lot.  The recent CO2 spike in the hockey stick graph (coinciding with the industrial age) has exacerbated the current warming trend, but it did not cause it.  In fact, if you zoom into the famous hockey stick you'll discover that increases in CO2 were always preceded by temperature increases, usually by hundreds of years.  The rising temperature happens before the rise in CO2…  CO2 does not cause warming.  It eventually makes it worse, but clearly doesn't cause it.  Even your orthodox science sources will confirm this. 

    We are currently in the part of the curve where CO2 is making it worse.  It would be accurate to say that CO2 causes an increase the rate of climate change.  Reducing CO2 output will indeed temper the intensity of climate change, but will not stop it.  (If it did, is global cooling preferable to warming?) 

    Nevertheless, I fully embrace the cause of sustainability.  But I embrace it because it's good old common-sense architecture… smart conservation of resources.  Not because it will "stop global warming and save the planet."  

    So far, 97% of all architecture firms have not signed the FEMA letter.  My guess is that most of them are not anti-sustainability advocates, or climate denying hayseeds.  Maybe they're just common-sense architects. 

    The bottom line is that sustainable practices are good, and should be promoted.  Does it really matter what the motivation is?  So please forgive me for being a nit-picker, and I'll forgive you for being a faithful believer.



    ------------------------------
    Dennis Wells AIA
    Oklahoma City OK
    ------------------------------



  • 16.  RE: Complaint to FEMA

    Posted 05-04-2018 10:05 AM
    Edited by Seonhee Kim AIA 05-04-2018 10:08 AM

    Not that I advocate the idea of "if you find it from internet, it must be true," I think below summary is scientifically sound. Just a quick search can provide some answers to the claim regarding "CO2 lags temperature".. As mentioned, there are many reasons why earth temperature fluctuate. Each big swing correlates with scientific explanation, such as Earth's orbit, Solar flare, Volcanic activities etc.. But just like Dr. Katharine Hayhoe puts it, they all have natural alibi against causing recent warming trend. She has her YouTube channel called "Global Weirding" that I watched with my child. If you are really care to understand the science, this can be a good starting point.

    This is the claim..
    "Earth's climate has varied widely over its history, from ice ages characterised by large ice sheets covering many land areas, to warm periods with no ice at the poles. Several factors have affected past climate change, including solar variability, volcanic activity and changes in the composition of the atmosphere. Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, based on Antarctic ice core data, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in Figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming."

    Figure 1: Vostok ice core records for carbon dioxide concentration and temperature change.


    This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth's surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.

    A 2012 study by Shakun et al. looked at temperature changes 20,000 years ago (the last glacial-interglacial transition) from around the world and added more detail to our understanding of the CO2-temperature change relationship.  They found that:

    • The Earth's orbital cycles triggered warming in the Arctic approximately 19,000 years ago, causing large amounts of ice to melt, flooding the oceans with fresh water. 
    • This influx of fresh water then disrupted ocean current circulation, in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres.
    • The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago.  As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls.  This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, releasing it into the atmosphere.

    While the orbital cycles triggered the initial warming, overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occured after that atmospheric CO2 increase (Figure 2).

     

    Figure 2: Average global temperature (blue), Antarctic temperature (red), and atmospheric CO2 concentration (yellow dots).  Source.

    Basic rebuttal written by dana1981
    CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

    (https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm)

    Also, I am a proponent of accuracy, and when in doubt, I check the "definition" from reputable source, in this case, IPCC can offer the definition.

    Climate change refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use. Note that the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, defines climate change as: 'a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods'. The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and climate variability attributable to natural causes. See also Climate variability; Detection and Attribution. (Definition courtesy of IPCC AR4.)


    Also, same panel's Fifth Assessment Report published in 2013 concluded that "It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century."

    I don't think this is a forum of real scientific discussion, but as an (ex-)scientist spent close to 5 years of my previous life, doing data collection and analysis on isotopic characteristics of atmospheric carbon dioxide, I felt violated when "science" is not properly represented.


    ------------------------------
    Seonhee Kim AIA
    Director of Sustainability / Senior Associate
    Design Collective, Inc.
    Baltimore MD
    ------------------------------



  • 17.  RE: Complaint to FEMA

    Posted 05-08-2018 10:50 AM

    Thanks for the thoughtful explanation of the science, Seonhee

     

    Andrew F. Cronan, AIA, LEED AP

    Senior Vice President

     

    GuernseyTingle

    4350 New Town Avenue, Suite 101

    Williamsburg, VA 23188

    o: 757.220.0220  m: 757.817.1889

    GUERNSEYTINGLE.COM

     

    Email Signature

     

     






  • 18.  RE: Complaint to FEMA

    Posted 05-05-2018 01:23 PM
    There is more than adequate data to substantiate the reasons for concern and attributable causes of climate change (change defined as exceeding recorded and consistent periodic fluctuations). 

    Rather than argue about whose data is better, I offer one observation based on 30 years of research laboratory design practice working directly with scientists on university campuses around the country. 

    The greatest indicator as to how seriously we should consider this problem is the source of research funding. Whereas 20 years ago this was primarily funded by NOAA and the EPA, the largest single source of federal funding into the physical, political and social effects of climate change is now the Department of Defense. 


    ------------------------------
    Andrew Labov FAIA
    CO Architects
    Los Angeles CA
    ------------------------------



  • 19.  RE: Complaint to FEMA

    Posted 05-04-2018 01:55 PM
    Greetings All,
    I post this again for reference as reliable sources seem to continue to be overlooked.
    I hope readers take the time, visit the site and use the document. 
    The Fourth National Climate Assessment Volume 1 - The Climate Science Special Report (CSSR) was cleared through the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and released by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) on Friday November 3, 2017. 
    Volume 2 is forthcoming in 2018 and will contain many chapters directly relevant and related to the architectural and engineering practice. 

    For this topic- extreme events-  go to chapter 3 | Detection and Attribution of Climate Change Section 3.4 Extreme Event Attribution

    As a licensed professional to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, I am not interested to knowingly take on liability connected to foreseeable events made worse due to climate destabilization.  I am also not interested to continue to "pay for stupid" via an increased federal tax burden for emergency disaster funding or increased private insurance rates. 

    Regarding the Federal sector /FEMA, readers may want to visit the Government Accountability Office's high risk list. Readers will find on the list Limiting the Federal Government's Fiscal Exposure by Better Managing Climate Change Risks.  Limiting the Federal Government's Fiscal Exposure by Better Managing Climate Change Risks.  

    Individuals who are not yet convinced by the evidence may want to track developments in attribution science, its use in law, discuss with their professional practice/liability counsel and consider their own risk appetite. 

    Adapting together, 
    A.R. Ann Kosmal FAIA


    ------------------------------
    Ann Kosmal FAIA

    ------------------------------

    ------------------------------
    Ann Kosmal FAIA

    ------------------------------