Skip to main content

Putting our 'House of Cards' in order


"Life creates situations conducive to life…we must strive to do that" -Paul Hawken

I've discussed this before, but I think it's worth addressing again; what ever happened to the precautionary principle? Why doesn't it apply to building science?

 
Imagine a world where it is harder to create a building or product that hurts the Earth than one that heals it- I believe that was the original intention of Building codes, Material Safety Data Sheets, and EPA regulation. But instead, it has provided opportunity for companies to say their products are safe because no one can prove they are dangerous!

 

Modern humans spend about 90% of their time in buildings- but still we construct them and finish them off with products that aren't healthy to breathe, touch, or make.

 

An article was published early last week about the long term negative health effects of 9/11 victims , rescuers, and so on. This year, dozens have died from cancers that can't be 'conclusively linked' to the plumes of 9/11 wreckage- but what are the odds, really? The twin towers were not so old that we can excuse these effects as ignorance.

 
This is reflected even in incidents like the Gold King mine spill, where people suffer decades later from toxic extraction practices and inadequate closure or remediation. Why is an acceptable for of mine closure to plug up a mountain full of radioactive sludge? No one could have predicted a little earth rumble or clerical error resulting in that stuff being set loose?

 
The approach to production and manufacturing is changing- a recent article in Building green advises, “If you can lick it, you want to know what’s in it.” But with 80% of our infrastructure built- and loopholes upon grandfathered exceptions to the rule, will change now be enough?

 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Eating Garbage

Garbage is Beautiful. And let me tell you why. In 2010, the EPA estimated the US produced over 240 million tons of municipal solid waste. That is over four pounds of garbage, per person, per day. We travel through our day throwing things ‘away’. But where do they go? Does your trash go to a landfill, incinerator, or Waste to Energy Plant? Currently in NJ, thirteen counties have solid waste landfills and five counties have resource recovery facilities (incinerators). Of the five counties with resource recovery facilities, three also have landfills to receive waste that cannot be burnt. Eight counties have awarded waste disposal contracts and require that all waste be sent to one facility for disposal. The remaining thirteen counties have a free market system and transporters may send waste out of the county or state. The majority of us don’t know information like this, and don’t care as long as we don’t have to look at it. But if we were forced to look at the garb...
Post a Comment
Read more

Covid, baby

Working in the sustainability field has been turned on its head during the Coronavirus pandemic. I went on a short hiatus to become a Mom (Elliott was born in March of 2020 only a few days before lockdown in NJ), and when I resurfaced, our approach needed to be different, here are some examples: Typically, the balance between ample fresh air within a building and energy use would result in driving the building toward lower energy use. Now, the ability to increase the outdoor air is desirable and is carrying more importance as a design consideration. We almost always pursued green cleaning operations and maintenance plans with our projects, however the Green Seal certified (or other healthy for people) cleaning products do not disinfect to the level desired for Covid- forcing teams to decide between abandoning their healthy cleaning policies and safety. Everything is packaged and sealed, and wrapped again. Cafes stopped allowing refillable coffee cups, towns that had plastic ba...
Post a Comment
Read more

Breaking News- Renewable Energy can STILL power our planet!

Yesterday, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released an exciting report about the potential of Renewables and the world energy market. Over 120 world experts produced a scientific document over 1,000 pages long that provides a solution to 'business as usual' carbon emissions. They believe that we could meet the globe's energy needs with 80% renewable energies by mid-century . This would be a socially, politically, and physically strenuous task. If we eliminate all the complications and shift our paradigm, we still have issues like that which Ramon Pichs, Co-Chair of the Working Group III, added: “The report shows that it is not the availability of the resource, but the public policies that will either expand or constrain renewable energy development over the coming decades. Developing countries have an important stake in this future—this is where most of the 1.4 billion people without access to electricity live yet also where some of the best conditi...
Post a Comment
Read more