As clients began asking for more detail and I took the first steps toward rethinking the materials I was specifying for retail design projects, I was quickly overwhelmed. It’s far easier to identify what’s wrong with building products manufactured under industrial age systems of production, but much more difficult to identify a comprehensible route toward sustainable practices, strategies, and building product options. I found it difficult to make heads or tails of the meager sustainable material options. I had no idea how to determine what was hype, what was real, what are harmful effects, what are beneficial attributes, or what was greenwashing. The need for evaluation and selection criteria was immediately apparent. But where to begin?

As mentioned in a previous post (here), there was no central design strategy for industrialization. There was no master plan. If we recognize the incredibly positive effects of industrialization – such as improved standard of living – then we also have to be realistic and acknowledge the negative consequences. It’s foolish, and eventually fatal, to ignore industrialization’s unavoidable detrimental repercussions. I believe we can utilize those to transform our system from industrial to sustainable. Referring to my previous post, there are four key components of the current system that must be the foundation for such a conversion – raw material supply (ecology), access to motive power (energy), effect on people and culture (society), and financial impact (economy).

These four issues – ecology, energy, society, and economy – will organize and reshape our thinking. Also, let us assume that such a transformation requires stages of change. It cannot happen instantaneously. A path to sustainability is one step at a time. In the diagram above, these four issues fall, from left to right, along a line dividing strategies that support industrial age processes and those that move us toward sustainability. Everything above the line is part of our existing industrial age system. Everything below the line facilitates a transformation away from take-make-waste systems.

Even though I’ve advocated in previous posts a move away from using the term green to describe the overall sustainability movements, I’ll use it here for diagrammatic purposes until we have a better term. In the framework shown above, steps toward sustainability are organized sequentially from top to bottom based on commitment required from green, to greener, to greenest. Each row of strategies are equally placed based on degree of engagement required. Those in the green row are actionable today, those in the greener row can be implemented tomorrow with a little planning, and those in the greenest row get closest to sustainable and involve more time and effort. Here’s a quick sketch of each:

Ecology

• Resource Preservation: Although it’s easy to see the planet as a bottomless well of resource wealth, but we’re starting to realize that raw materials are not limitless and natural resources are being stretched to the breaking point. We need to develop plans that conserve valuable material stocks.
• Waste Reduction: Generally speaking, typical industrial manufacturing generates more waste than finished goods. We need to make waste minimization a priority.
• Closed Loop Systems: In addition to conserving resources and reducing waste, we must rethink waste entirely. In nature, the byproduct of one process is the food for another. Our systems must strive to emulate natural systems.

Energy

• Energy Conservation: More energy can be saved on the consumption side of the equation through improved efficiency and conservation than any other immediate action.
• Embodied Energy: Every product made requires energy to manufacture. We need to be knowledgeable and aware of those that consume the least energy to produce and encourage their selection.
• Alternative Supply: In addition to conservation initiatives and reduced embodied energy, renewable fuel alternatives to feed growing demand will be required. The supply side of the equation must be restructured.

Society

• Eliminate Toxins: A tragically small percentage of building products have been tested for health impacts due to long term human exposure. And those that have been tested, are already known to be harmful. Yet our buildings are filled with these toxic products.
• Locally Cultivated: One size fits all solutions are steadily becoming impracticable. Mass customization based on specific local needs is becoming the norm. Individual personalization, self expression, historical context, and connection to community are rapidly becoming the minimum expectation. Meaningful design has to cultivate a relationship with real people where they are.
• Nurturing Environments: We live, work, and play in toxic environments disconnected to the outside world. Even in many polluted cities, indoor air quality is worse than outdoor air. Rather than poisoning us, our environments should be nurturing and enriching.

Economy

• Net Zero Cost: Financial capital is a resource in equal need of conservation. At an absolute minimum, strategies which preserve resources, conserve energy, and eliminate toxins should be done without increased cost. The first step should be painless and easy.
• Life Cycle Cost: Deeper commitment will promote a different means of accounting deep value. A move away from disposable culture will assist in evaluating products where past, present, and future benefit are equally considered.
• Eco-System Cost: Current cap and trade legislation being discussed is just the tip of the iceberg in a dramatic shift away from the practice of externalities. Twenty-first century corporations must incorporate ecosystem costs on their balance sheet in order to be viable.

Since implementing this framework with my clients, decision making is demonstrably less challenging. Knowing where specific proposed strategies fit helps make informed decisions, determine how to marshal capital and other resources, and to maximize value at minimal effect. Carelessly squandering or intentionally diminishing asses to natural resources for future generations is inter-generational tyranny. Our children and grandchildren have no say in the planet we leave them, but certainly have a stake in its welfare.

In coming posts I’ll dive into each one of these in depth. I’ll include historical context, identify the principle catalyst for historical growth, show compelling examples that clearly illustrate the issue, and suggest actionable strategies. Please come back for more.

related posts:

• March 8, 2010 -- UCLAx – class 8 (0)
• February 25, 2010 -- review: Strategy for Sustainability (0)
• February 15, 2010 -- UCLAx class 6 (1)
• November 6, 2009 -- where’s my free market 2 (1)
• October 28, 2009 -- defining “rapidly renewable” (2)