our site status: This week we're a little bit behind due to a trip to Miami, which was wonderful. We'll be doing a field trip with our UCLAx class to the LA Steelcase showroom, and a few design friends will be in town for the weekend.
join our site: We just added this feature. Please become a member of our blog so we can begin to build a community around the idea of sustainable age design.
our schedule: We're regularly attending events and conferences around the country, or speaking at them. Here's where we'll be in the next thirty days:
3/11/10: Students will present the second of three profile research presentations. This time about companies and/or people.
3/19/10: Kevin will appear as a guest on the award winning DAMage Report radio show on LA Talk Radio.
3/20/10 @ 11 AM PST: Kevin will again join hosts Rhonda and Johnnie for his monthly appearance on the Good Green Witch show on LA Talk Radio.
4/2/10: Kevin and Aleida will attend the grand opening of L.A.'s Zenergy House.
4/22/10: Kevin will present at the first annual Valley Water Expo on Earth Day.
4/22/10: Kevin will host a panel discussion about sustainable building materials during the second annual BrightTALK Green Building Summit.
|
 by aleida, on March 17th, 2010 
Two-hundred years ago, about 80% of the U.S. population lived and worked on farms. Today, that same percentage of the population lives in cities. The urbanization process left a large number of farmhouses, barns, and other rural structures abandoned to the elements, and for at least the last four decades, there has been a concerted effort to reclaim the materials abandoned long ago for use in new structures. Currently, the positive impact of this reclamation is easily discernible – the preservation of live trees, diversion of waste from the landfill, etc. – but those who initially bought milled products made out of reclaimed barn wood didn’t do it for sustainability’s sake. Michael Black, founder and owner of the San Rafael, CA-based company Black’s Farmwood, found this out the hard way. His original green pitch was a bust, but when he learned to focus on the beauty of the material, he found he could infiltrate projects and guide them towards sustainable materials.
Michael came to the business of reclaiming wood rather accidentally. In the mid-90s, he was a psycho-biology major at UC Santa Cruz. He describes his career opportunities as being “in the field of prescribing drugs.” In his senior year, a particularly inspirational humanistic psychology class made him switch to a clinical psychology major, where he could explore human potential and the collective unconscious. Upon graduation, he turned down a job at a Santa Cruz biotech company, and instead sought organic personal development by traveling abroad. “I knew I didn’t want to be tied down in a lab,” he says. Once back in the U.S., jobless and with a thin pocketbook, he went to work as a carpenter for one of his friend’s father, a contractor working on a large private residence project in Marin County, CA. To further his education, Michael enrolled in a Ph.D. program at the California Institute of Integral Studies in San Francisco, where he planned to study the same philosophical vein that he had first explored in college.
One day, while speaking to his grandmother back on the family’s Ohio tobacco farm, she informed him that the farm’s 150-year-old antique oak tobacco barn had been blown down in a storm. Asked what she planned to do with it, she replied she would have the wood burned, and the site cleaned up. “I thought, ‘What a waste to do that!,” says Michael. The impending fate of the fallen structure connected a dot for Michael, who for a while now had been seeing a lot of wood waste piling up at the job site, in a dumpster, headed for the landfill. “I saw beautiful pieces being trashed. Intuitively, I knew that was not right. So I thought I should try to recycle the barn.”
Michael convinced a high school friend to send him a small piece of the fallen barn. The man whose residence Michael was working on at the time saw the wood and wanted it for his house. “That’s how things fell into place,” Michael recounts. With travel expenses paid for, Michael went to his farm to get the wood for that proejct. Working with just crowbars and saws, it took Michael and that high school friend a couple of weeks to completely dismantle the barn, package it up, and ship it back to Marin County.
With laughter in his voice, he admits they didn’t quite know what they were doing. “I thought this was a one-time deal. I was going to take the proceeds and put it towards my education.” But word got out, and fast. The client told his friends about the wood, the architect told people, and soon Michael was receiving calls from strangers asking him for product for their own projects. “After I had so many calls and so many inquires, I just couldn’t ignore the call to adventure. I was in school and I knew I enjoyed my studies – but this was real life. That’s why I say Black’s Farmwood chose me; I didn’t choose it.” After withdrawing from school altogether, Michael went back to Ohio and set up camp on the family property. With the help of his two grandfathers, he started taking down their neighbor’s old farms and making large stacks of boards at his camp. He used the nascent power of the Internet and, little by little, established connections with people on both coasts. After about four months, he had enough inventory to return to California and establish an actual business. Black’s Farmwood was founded on January 1, 1999.
It wasn’t a full operation at first, and even though he started the company as a way to pursue environmental principles, that foundation didn’t help him much. “I definitely was not making it in the environmental community. I would get a lot of positive feedback, but never got any purchase orders.” And the green message didn’t get him anywhere with established architecture and design firms, yet they would prove pivotal in the company’s growth. “It wasn’t until I embraced the design community that it really started to take off,” says Michael. Designers and their clients, working on Tuscan villas, French farmhouses, or Spanish mission style homes, started gravitating toward the reclaimed wood because it was rustic and beautiful, not because of any environmentally positive attributes that it might offer. “For me, that was fine, because I knew that we weren’t cutting down new trees,” Michael says. “I didn’t need to force the sustainability message on people. I focused on what they wanted, but I didn’t have to compromise my values.”
In the last decade, however, he has seen the public’s awareness make leaps and bounds towards environmental understanding. “To my satisfaction, people are still interested in the beauty and story of the reclaimed wood, but there is so much more of a consciousness regarding the environment and global climate change,” says Michael. The number of purveyors of reclaimed barn board has exploded, and with that comes the reality that at some point there will be no more barns to deconstruct and reclaim. Michael does not know when that point will be reached, but he does say that business opportunities don’t end with farm buildings. He has taken the initiative to provide greater value, variety, and accountability for his products. He has a strategic relationship with another Bay Area company to reclaim urban logs and mill them into flooring, so that for any Bay Area clients, the carbon footprint of their finished product is amazingly minuscule. Years ago he started selling FSC certified wood, and on January 18, 2010 he obtained his FSC Chain of Custody certification.
The increased national demand, and growing international use of reclaimed and sustainably harvested wood has also led him to team up with his aunt and uncle and establish a second company, Farmwood International. From an office in Manhattan, Farmwood International focuses on customers east of the Mississippi and over the Atlantic. With his business established, Michael now spends a lot of his time consulting for companies, helping them to connect the dots on increased efforts toward sustainability.
We’re eager to see what new areas his businesses explore. Thank you, Michael, for your time during out sit-down!
by kevin, on March 15th, 2010 
For our tenth class, we continued a discussion begun the week prior during our field trip to Steelcase regarding toxic substances. Prior to the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 knowing what was in our food or what nutritional its ingredients contained was anyone’s guess. Even though many people today, after twenty years, still don’t know how to read or understand the ingredients list or nutritional facts label. Even though that information does not currently include notification of genetically modified content, can be confusing, and some ingredients difficult to pronounce, at least it offers consumers help in making purchasing decisions based on dietary of health needs. The same is not true of other products that have equally important impact on our health. The EPA estimates that we spend more than 90% of our time indoors in buildings with no direct access to outside air. And unless you’ve done significant research ahead of time, few of us know what ingredients those indoor environments are composed of. The same is true for the vast majority of the consumer products we purchase and use in those buildings.
In 1976 the US Congress passed the Toxic Substances Control Act which also created the Environmental Protection Agency. At the time, it was decided that too many existing chemicals and compounds were already on the market to test for long term human or environmental exposure. Therefore, 62,000 substances were grandfathered in and added to their database. Since then, another 35,000 substances have been added, yet few have ever undergone extensive testing for safety. The EPA itself estimates that 95% of all chemicals and compounds on the market today have never undergone rigorous testing for potential human health risks or environmental impacts. In the thirty-four years of its existence, the EPA has only banned five substances – lead-based ingredients (such as paints and gasoline), PCBs, Asbestos, DDT, and CFCs.
Our class discussion focused on volatile organic compounds (VOCs), added formaldehyde, mercury, vinyl or polyvinyl chloride (PVC), brominated flame retardants, dioxin, bisphenol A, and phthalates. Most of these are substances are regulated by the EPA and found in many common products. Phthalates and bisphenol A are both plasticizers. Phthalates are added to plastics and polymers to make them more pliant and soft. Everyone is familiar with that new car smell – that’s phthalates being released. They off-gas from the dashboard and other interior components for as much as two years. Phthalates have been linked to reproductive damage and can have a dramatic effect on young boys by diminishing their production of testosterone. Bisphenol A is added to clear plastics to harden them. It mimics human hormones and does not follow the normal patterns of toxicity. Generally speaking, for most potentially harmful substances, the greater the exposure the greater the risk of impact, and the smaller the exposure the smaller the risk. But hormones do not follow this same pattern. Small, even trace, amounts can have large and continual impact. The normal toxicity exposure to impact ration is not applicable, which is one reason so many are actively pressing the EPA to ban bisphenol A.
The reason to discuss chemicals and compounds and understand potential human and environmental exposure concerns is that the issue relates to life cycle assessment, or LCA. No material or resource can be harvested, mined, or extracted, then manufactured, manipulated, or used without impact. Making informed material decisions requires some knowledge about potential impacts so that they can be evaluated as part of an overall assessment. The EPA identifies five phases of production to consider in an LCA – raw materials, manufacturing, packaging and transport, use and maintenance, and recycling or waste. With each of these phases, there are inputs and outputs. For example, during the packaging and transport phase there is fuel consumed as input, and potential solid wastes generated as output. Both input and output can be weighted and prioritized to determine whether there significant value gained or probable impact experienced. These can be interpreted and analyzed by each individual to direct selection decisions.
It’s also important to understand the potential harm substances pose to people or the environment as part of a cradle to cradle system. If a chemical is a known carcinogen or ecosystem contaminant, then keeping them within a closed loop system potentially perpetuates their impact. For some substances, continued exposure mean accumulation of damage. Nature cannot process some chemicals and compounds. They are persistently bio-accumulative. From the list discussed in class, formaldehyde, mercury, and dioxin fall into this category.
Although it was a tough subject to cover, I feel we all have a better understanding of why we all need to be vigilant in pressing manufacturers to be transparent about ingredients were possible so we can make informed decisions. Designers and consumers alike have to know what’s in the materials we specify and consume in our move toward healthier sustainable processes.
by kevin, on March 13th, 2010 
Two weeks ago Aleida and I took a dreadful red-eye flight from LA to Miami. I hate red-eye flights. We flew with Virgin America this time, which was a new experience for us. Having an internet connection while en-route helped me wrap up the final details of a show I was scheduled to deliver just a few hours after landing. I speak at various events and conference around the country on a number of topics, but water seems to be the hot issue for me right now. I was invited to present at the second annual MiaGreen Expo and Conference, an event that Aleida has recently been posting about – preview: MiaGreen, review: MiaGreen overview, review: MiaGreen session 1, review: MiaGreen session 2, and review: MiaGreen session 3.
My session was titled Water Wars: Rising Demand vs. Diminishing Supply and was organized into three sections – Distribution of Water, Factors of Disruption, and Climate of Conflict. I’ve posted several times covering the issues discussed in the first section, but I would like this post to focus on the five primary factors of disruption – climate change, manipulation and diversion, pollution, over-consumption, and privatization. To be sure, there are many other factors that diminish the supply of fresh water, but these five are those already leading to physical conflict.
When discussing issues related to global climate, I prefer the term climate change to global warming. Not because global warming isn’t correct, but it only describes a single aspect of the issues. It’s likely that those who have a stake in not believing climate is changing will go on denying it, but I’ve read enough and and seen enough to convince me that human activity over the past two-hundred years has accelerated changes in global climate. Throughout the U.S., regions are experiencing dramatic shifts in precipitation patterns – some states will see increased snow and rain, while neighboring states will see increased drought. Nowhere is this more obvious than in California. The state depends on seasonal snow melt and runoff from the Sierra Nevada mountain range for domestic drinking water, agriculture, recreation, and industrial purposes. The most productive agricultural region in the nation is partially fed by that water. But a persistent trend toward less snowfall is creating significant regional conflict as water levels are dramatically reduced. The images above show recent water level data for reservoirs throughout the state and recent conditions at one. Many are well below seasonal averages. All indications are that continued changes in climate will bring less snow to the region and ultimately less water for vital needs. In the past year we’ve already seen the political climate heat up as urban and rural areas begin to fight over a shrinking supply.
It’s estimated that 68% of all U.S. rivers and navigable water systems have been manipulated, diverted, altered, or controlled. It’s well understood that damming a river or modifying its course creates environmental impact to surrounding ecology. Natural watersheds are vast living systems with water as its life blood. Diversions transform the path of valuable nutrients, alter the water composition, change the water temperature, and ultimately impact all animal species within the watershed, including humans. In North and Central America there are more than 8,000 dams or diversions. And although that seems like a large number, it pales in comparison to the more than 31,000 dams and diversions that exist in Asia. Nowhere else in the world are more people doing more to control the course of water. For more than 70 years the seven states that make up the Colorado River watershed have been battling over agreements that dictate access to the water. So much is taken that very little of the river reaches the Gulf of California, routinely angering Mexico who is contractually entitled to a share. Similar battles are currently being fought in neighboring Chinese villages, and are likely to increase as more people demand greater supply.
Throughout the world, water systems have become a dumping zone for all kinds of pollutants. Some of the most contaminated rivers in the world are located in regions with the densest populations of Southeast Asia. Rapid industrial growth in China, India, South Korea, and others is leading to rapid contamination of water systems due to minimal government regulations regarding toxic dumping. Minimal garbage and sewage systems in these regions are also leading to swift degradation of once clean rivers as they fill up with human waste and trash. Add to that an increasing quantity of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers washing off growing industrialized farms throughout the world and it’s easy to see how some of the largest water systems are transitioning from fresh to polluted making them utterly unusable for sizable populations.
For centuries, humans have moved water from where it is abundant to where it is needed. But over the past three decades, we’ve gotten very good at moving large quantities in short time frames. In the image above you can see the 1960 outline of what was once one of the largest bodies of inland water, the Aral Sea. The satellite photo was taken in 2000. The dramatic reduction in water can clearly be seen. Over a ten year period between 2000 and 2009, water has been moved from the Aral Sea to Russian farms to grow cotton. They attempted to grow one of the most water and pesticide intensive crops in a region short of water. In doing so, they’ve practically drained the Sea in less than 10 years. Inappropriate water use and consumption at unsustainable rateswill increase the impact on limited and dwindling water supplies.
One of the greatest threats to remaining supply is the trend toward water privatization. There are actually two parts to this threat, bottled water and privatized distribution in developing nations. It’s estimated by the International Bottled Water Association that U.S. sales of bottled water reached 29 billion bottles in 2007. At its current rate of growth, bottled water will soon overtake carbonated beverages as the leader in drink sales, and represent a dramatic shift away from tap water. Which is quite ironic since 40% of all bottled water is actually tap water. The three largest beverage manufacturers Coca Cola, Pepsi, and Nestle Waters have successfully convinced the public that their water is better than municipal water while selling it for more than 1900 times the price. What’s especially troubling about this trend is how, in some cases, bottled water has trace amounts of substances such as bisphenol A, benzine, toluene, antimony, and others that were not present in the original municipal source water. And, as long as the water is extracted, bottled, and sold within state lines it comes under no government regulations for safety. Skirmishes between local communities and international corporations are already beginning to take place throughout the United States. At the same time, the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, United Nations, and World Trade Organization have set financial assistance guidelines for third world and developing nations that requires privatization of municipal water delivery. In doing so, they’ve created a pattern that benefits some of the largest water companies such as Bechtel, Veolia, Thames Water, and Suez Environment while pricing the average consumer out of the market. Most new water contracts signed under the guidelines of these world organizations guarantees a specific return on investment for the powerful water companies, which often leads to price increases of 200-300%. Poor citizens routinely find themselves having to choose between water and food. In some cases, desperate people are even charged by the corporations for collecting their own rain water. It’s a dangerous trend that puts vulnerable populations under conditions that significantly limit their access to a vital resource.
As global populations increase and climate changes century-old precipitation patterns, as we continue to alter and manipulate water systems and impact watershed ecology, as we generate more pollution, as we consume diminishing supplies at unsustainable rates, and privatize the remaining supply, we set ourselves up for more battles, fights, and wars over a resource that’s absolutely vital for life. There is no substitute for water. When we taint and over-consume the small supply available, we put future generations at risk in a way that’s far more dangerous than the depletion of other natural resources.
Click on the graphic below if you would like to see the full show on SlideShare:
by aleida, on March 11th, 2010 
At the Los Angeles edition of Go Green Expo in late January, we learned of a Japanese wall covering just recently launched in the United States. Not long thereafter, Kevin and I were welcomed into the Orange, CA offices of Shikoku International Corp., the company that designed and still produces the product, Eco De Vita, and which now sells it in this country.
We met with Rosann Allenbaugh and Yoshiyuki Oyama, who gave us a bit of company background and walked us through a detailed look at Eco De Vita. The company was founded on the island of Shikoku, Japan, after which it was named, in 1947. In 1970, it introduced a wet wall finishing material that results from mixing sand, pigments, a binder, and water. The tradition of mixing natural materials to create interior wall coatings is long-lived in the Japanese culture, but the quality of the coatings varied from one plasterer to another. Shikoku’s product, manufactured in a single location, immediately offered uniform pigmentation, texture, and quality upon its introduction, and over the past thirty years it has become a market leader in Japan. Thirteen years ago, Shikoku expanded its wall coating offerings by introducing a diatom soil-based plaster.
Under the Eco De Vita brand, Shikoku now offers two collections of coating options: the Sand Wall Series (the original 1970 product) and the D.E. Wall Series (introduced to the Japanese market in 1997). During our meeting, our focus centered on the latter due to its potential to positively affect indoor air quality. The “D.E.” in the name stands for diatomaceous earth, a naturally-occurring, soft, and sandy-like sedimentary rock that is composed of the fossilized remains of diatoms, which themselves are a type of algae encased in cell walls made out of silica. Diatomaceous earth has a variety of modern applications. For example, similar to activated carbon, it boasts high porosity, so because of its large surface area and resulting high adsorption it is used as a filtration aid. It also has wide applications as a mild abrasive, thermal insulator, and even as an insecticide.
Eco De Vita’s D.E. Wall Series has two distinct product lines: KRM and KRT. Both are incredibly beautiful, offer a range of 60 color options, from the subdued to the truly eye-popping, and can be applied to plaster board, cement mortar, and gypsum board. Because they are made of natural materials, these products release no harmful substances. Rather, owing to the inherent properties of diatomaceous earth, internal tests have shown that both of these wall coverings actually adsorb odors, adsorb and break down formaldehyde into harmless components, and help to control humidity.
All of the test results were obtained through controlled laboratory experiments conducted under specific conditions, so actual field results are probably going to vary. But, during the tests, KRM has shown to adsorb 40% of unwanted odors (such as those coming from a pet or produced by a smoker) in just 15 minutes, while KRT adsorbs and breaks down 99% of those smells in the same amount of time. Formaldehyde faces an equally quick destruction: KRM reduces formaldehyde levels to 1/7 the original in 60 minutes; KRT takes only 30 minutes to bring that level down to an impressive 1/20 of the original presence. In high humidity spaces, when KRM is applied to the walls and KRT to the ceiling, both products absorb the equivalent of one gallon of moisture in a 24-hour period, and can release the same amount during the same length of time if a dry condition is introduced, thus helping to control internal humidity levels. One additional benefit of these two products is that, again owing to the characteristics of the diatomaceous earth, they offer natural fire retardant properties (they are Class A fire rated).
 Images courtesy of Shikoku web site Once applied, KRM offers the smoothest finish to the touch. It is composed of 94.8% diatomaceous earth, 3.9% of a bonding emulsifier, and 1.3% pigment. It can be spray-coated, but hand troweling allows for artistry and can yield beautiful patterns, such as the fan, feather, and linen weave finishes.
KRT, although clearly the one with the most absorptive properties, is a little rougher to the touch and not recommended for just any application. It is very porous, containing 87.9% diatomaceous earth, 11.6% bonding emulsifier, and only 0.5% pigment. It cannot be cleaned or scrubbed, so a wall application is encouraged only where its cleanliness can be somewhat guarded, like in private homes, high wall areas, or even high end retail. It is, however, ideal for ceilings everywhere, and it, too, can be either spray-coated or applied with a trowel.
For an even more unique look, small aggregates such as straw fibers or tiny glass beads can easily be added into the mix for both KRM and KRT. Shikoku sells these aggregates, but it provides only a limited selection of sizes and colors so it encourages clients to substitute their own.
The entire Eco De Vita product line is SCS Certified Indoor Advantage Gold, and meets the Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS) and the CA 01350 standards for indoor air emissions. The product is in fact produced exclusively in Japan, so anyone looking to use only locally-sourced wall coatings needs to keep that in mind. And while there are stocks in Southern California, if an order should need to come directly from Japan, it would carry a 60-day lead time.
Eco De Vita was launched into the U.S. market earlier this year, and the team behind it is actively organizing a national distribution network. If you would like to learn more about Eco De Vita, purchase it, or even become a distributor and/or product representative, please contact Mr. Yoshiyuki (Yoshi) Oyama directly.
If you are in the Sacramento area and would like to see this product line in person, Shikoku will be an exhibitor at the upcoming Green California Summit and Exposition, taking place March 15-17 at the Sacramento Convention Center.
Thank you, Rosann and Yoshi, for introducing us to this great product!
by kevin, on March 10th, 2010 
For our ninth class we return to our normal class room, but at an alternate time and date. This week was a make-up class required due to a scheduling conflict. We continued discussion of an earlier topic – waste reduction – and transitioned to resource preservation.
In previous classes where waste was discussed, we focused only on municipal solid waste (MSW). What we see at the curb in trash cans, in dumpsters, in garbage trucks, and eventually in landfills is just the tip of a very large waste iceberg. MSW represents just one percent of all waste produced in the United States. The other 99% is waste produced that does not go through the MSW system and does not end up in municipal landfills. 57% is classified as waste produced by industrial processes. The average consumer product generates many more times as much waste as finished product. Another 40% is classified as special and usually includes hospital or medical waste, dangerous or possibly toxic chemicals, or other waste that requires special treatment as part of its disposal. And a final 2% is classified as hazardous and is usually military, government, or highly controlled, such as nuclear waste. What’s not typically counted, yet represents an even larger amount, is agricultural waste. It’s not usually included in waste calculations because it’s difficult to measure and usually stays on the property where it was generated.
Over the past two hundred years, industrialized processes have become very efficient, yet continue to produce a significantly larger percentage of waste material in comparison to finished product. One-size-fits-all and other monoculture strategies rely on brute force to produce the greatest amount of mass consumable product following universal design strategies at the lowest possible cost. McDonough and Braungart give an excellent example of this in their book Cradle to Cradle by describing how “major soap manufacturers design one detergent for all parts of the United States or Europe, even though water qualities and community needs differ.” Some regions of the country have hard water, requiring more detergent to work. Other regions have soft water, requiring less detergent to work. The product is designed to work under any condition in any location. Therefore, waste is inevitable. In addition to reconceptualizing the idea of what constitutes waste, cradle to cradle strategies need to rethink the use of raw materials and preserve natural resources by using less and developing selection strategies that reduce waste.
Within the building materials world, there are new products being introduced every month. Some of them are taking a serious look at resource management. Designers of all kinds, whether they be architects, interior designers, industrial designers, graphic designers, set designers, product designers, or any other need to look at materials, resources, and their sourcing prior to or in conjunction with design. I can say that in the architectural world, too much design is done before materials are considered. Like the detergent example, this inevitably leads to inefficiency and waste.
We’ve developed our own material selection criteria and group products in six categories – those with a high percentage of recycled content (with a grading scale of A, B, and C for both post-consumer and post-industrial content), those that can be reused or repurposed, those made with rapidly renewable resources (with a grading of renewable, rapidly-renewable, and hyper-renewable based on time to reach biological maturity), those that contribute to the reduced use of virgin sources, those that rethink technology, and those that are locally cultivated. We’ve posted about this subject several times (read here) so we won’t go into detail with this post.
There is a rapidly growing collection of excellent sustainable materials. The class and I had a great time looking at and discussing these potential options. As the market begins to prove its viability, new companies are entering the marketplace and older established companies are starting to change their existing practices. Significant movement is underway, even while the world economy is struggling. Companies old and new are seeking new processes and new options for raw materials that reduces waste produced before the product reaches the consumer. Which is where most of the waste is generated. I’m very optimistic that progress is being made and we’re moving in the right direction.
|
