NZ Passive House Forum

kr · Wed, 01/04/2009 16:46:22

Frequently, students are visiting me for support of their “sustainable” building or planning project.

I usually start the discussion by asking them their definition of sustainability in the context of the built environment. Here are some of the most recent answers: buildings with green roofs; traffic on Queen Street needs to be reduced; use of sustainable materials; houses consume too much energy.

While undoubtedly this is all somehow connected to sustainability, none of the above comes even close to a definition of sustainability in the context of the built environment. I do not blame students for fragmented thinking, though, as these answers reflect the approaches in the literature. In current literature, building sustainable is implicitly defined as doing less harm to the environment than it would normally be the case with a building of this class.

What is wrong with this approach? Everything.

First of all: sustainability has socio-economic aspects that cannot be separated from the bio-physical parts of the most widely accepted definition contained in the Brundtland report:

"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." 1)

None of the above attempts at defining sustainability factors in socio-economic aspect even remotely. Again, I am not blaming students, as this reflects the discussion in the architectural discipline (and largely in the planning discipline as well).

Even when the definition of sustainability is restricted to bio-physical aspects, pick and choose approaches prevail. The New Zealand Resource Management Act (1991) which has the purpose of managing bio-physical resources, while

"Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment" 2)

was seemingly on the right track by requiring to avoid action when non-renewable resources (land being the most prominent in the context of the Resource Management Act) are threatened to be degraded – ergo not being available for future generations to meet their needs.
Regrettably, case law has construed the verbs in the above sentence as being on the same level rather than the order of which to consider sustainable management of resources. Thus, mitigation of adverse environmental effects became equated with sustainability. This is well in line with how sustainability has been framed by interested parties.

It is no wonder, then, that changes to “streamline” the Resource Management Act (RMA) were introduced with the following fanfare:

"The Act, aimed at protecting the environment, has been the bane of property developers and construction companies, and Prime Minister John Key says it has been a hand brake on growth." (ONENews TVNZ Feb 3, 2009 Govt announces RMA revamp)

Sustainability, taken seriously, would require legislation designed to protect natural and physical resources to do exactly this: keeping growth in check. Unfortunately, the RMA did not succeed in this regard. However, even the modest dampers on growth were too much for the business community and the new government.

As Sharon Beder put it:

"Sustainable development today means incorporating the environment into the economic system rather than adapting the economic system to fit with the natural environment. Considered as a component of the economic system, the environment is seen to provide raw materials for production and to be a receptacle for wastes from production." 3)

Legislation is streamlined to not be in the way of economic growth. The prevailing rhetoric has it that you can have your cake and eat it, which is stylised in the term: sustainable growth. However: for growth to be sustainable, the ecosystem in which it is embedded would need to grow as well. We literally need more than one Earth for sustainable growth. Failing this, development has to happen within bio-physical boundaries. Almost all bio-physical media (air, water, land) are at the limit – some probably beyond – of their carrying capacity.
Any bus company, wishing to increase their customer base, knows that you cannot grow the load of a full bus. Failing to buy another bus, the expansion of the business has reached its limits.
Growth cannot be equated with development, though. The bus company may well improve their services, thus being able to charge higher fares, with the prospect of higher returns. Meeting the needs of the present is exactly about this. Increasing Gross Domestic Product is not.

Does that mean the most sustainable building is the one not built?

It depends on whether there is a need to be met. If there is no need, buildings are simply taking away bio-physical resources from future generations without contributing to the present.
Currently, however, we overwhelmingly do not build to meet needs. We build, because we can (afford it), or because we have reason to assume a profit. By way of substantiation: Presently, the number of building consents is not dropping because suddenly all needs were satisfied. Numbers are rapidly shrinking in line with profit margins and available finance. This does not mean that no housing need exists in New Zealand - quite the contrary. Many of our houses do not provide shelter from harm – they are making us sick. Economic development would seek to rectify this. Economic growth is on the outlook to market profitable green field developments, as soon as this becomes feasible again.

If a need for new buildings can be demonstrated, the ones that go up should use as little resources as possible. This starts with a small footprint. Average house sizes have increased exponentially in recent years, all the while average occupancy rates were shrinking. The 2.2 family suddenly needs in excess of 250 square meters indoors to feel at home, despite the prevailing myth of Kiwis spending most of their time at the bosom of Mother Nature.
Resources to build a house are yet again small compared to resource use required to operate a building during its lifetime. Here, starting small has absolute benefits, as ongoing resource usage is to a great degree directly related to size.

Form factors are another obvious measure for savings. Attached buildings not only need less material to be built, they also consume less heating energy – purely for geometrical reasons. As an added benefit, they can contribute to good urban design outcomes, and –contrary to popular belief –have the prospect of delivering better privacy, than 3m spaced out detached buildings.

Having started on some bio-physical aspects of sustainable buildings (solely for the reason that they are usually overlooked): it is an herculean task to even get all bio-physical aspects of buildings right. That is why I did not label any of the buildings I was planning sustainable (my clients did, occasionally). I identified them as energy efficient.

The very least I expect from a sustainable building is that – while it may be impossible to optimise all aspects of sustainability, no aspect should be worsened as an effect of the project being built or operated. E.g. enlarging roof areas to harvest more rainwater, insulation products needing harmful substances for their gestation, or hydro projects that aggravate socio-economic inequality would be unacceptable. This is hard enough to ascertain. Even though I am concerned with sustainable building processes for some decades now – I find it impossible to consider all these aspects, particularly as sound data for decision making is hard to come by.
Additionally, many things are usually completely out of the hands of architects or planners (e.g. most socio-economic aspects).

Rather than despairing, I am suggesting to rephrase. Calling building projects sustainable only when they fully warrant the attribute, and labelling everything else what it is, e.g. projects improving equality, water/energy efficiency, or eradicating poverty.
While I feel an urgent need to integrate the principle of sustainability in the built environment, green-wash rhetoric is not the way to get us there:

"What matters is the sincerity with which these goals are pursued and the effectiveness with which departures from them are corrected." 4)

As long as every bit of insulation or green roof renders a building project sustainable, sustainability as a holistic principle is taunted.
I fully accept that our room for manoeuvre as architects or planners in this regard is limited. But rather than pretending to solve the problem, we need to name our projects correctly, and to put the remaining concerns forward to the appropriate addressees.

What, then, is my definition of sustainability in the context of the built environment?

"Building projects are sustainable, when they can satisfactorily demonstrate to meet the needs of the present, while reasonably upholding that they do not impair on the ability of future generations to meet their needs."

Indicators and a monitoring regime are required to ascertain the implications of the two halves of the above sentence. How can a need be demonstrated? How can we be sure not to diminish the capacities of future generations? Is there an in-built flexibility to correct if the goals are not achieved?

In this light, even Passive Houses are not automatically sustainable buildings. Yet, they are addressing more than just environmental concerns. Fuel poverty, for example, gets a whole new significance if social housing is built to Passive House standards. Some Austrian regions and many German incentive programmes require them to be built to Passive House standard, which is another step in the right direction.

Please add your perspective!

-------------------------------------------
1) Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future. World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Published as Annex to General Assembly document A/42/427

2) s 5, Resource Management Act 1991

3) Beder, S. (2000) Adapting the economic system to fit the environment. Engineers Australia, September 2000, p. 50.

4) see footnote 1

Steve Netwriter · Sun, 09/08/2009 18:32:47

This is a subject I come at from an economic perspective. I've been very interested in economics and the financial system recently.
Having watched the Prof Albert Bartlett videos http://www.neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/forum/45 and the Chris Martenson Crash course http://www.neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/forum/44 I can see the tension between resource sustainability and the need for constant economic and monetary growth caused by our current debt-based money system.

In essence, the only way for the system to be able to pay the interest on debt is for the system to keep taking out more debt. And the only way that is "sustainable" is if we have economic growth.

As Prof Bartlett beautifully explains, we simply cannot have growth forever. We are heading for a brick wall. Now slowing down simply means we will hit the wall less hard, but we will still hit it. The only possibility if we continue is if we can build a route which allows us to miss that wall before we get there. So for example, in the case of peak oil, if we could replace oil as our main energy source before demand starts to outstrip supply and prices create a massive drag on the economy.

Even so, if we continue to grow we will run out of other resources and even space on the planet.

The only conclusion I can come to is that at some point we must stop growing. That would require:
1. A money system that works with zero growth.
2. For things like house building (and everything else) to be truly sustainable ie there is no net consumption from resources.

I think the basic conflict, and the reason why "sustainability" is so difficult, is the root cause of the problem, which is our very money system.

For other options, IMO Bernard Lietaer gives some splendid insights http://www.neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/forum/50

On "global warming" my view is this:
1. I do not think there is good evidence of man-made global warming of any significant extent.
2. I do think peak oil is a major concern, and there is good evidence for it.
3. I am concerned about pollution.

So in many ways my views will match those of someone who believes in "global warming", except my concern is where we get energy from instead of worrying about the production of CO2.

kr · Sun, 09/08/2009 21:37:06

Hi Steve,

I am trying to understand your point. Are you saying, CO2 is not a problem at all? Are you saying, yes, it is a problem, just not the cause of global warming (if so: what is wrong with CO2 in your opinion)? Are you saying: it might be a problem, but the scientists at the IPCC and many more did not deliver compelling evidence for this? What is the good evidence for peak oil, and how does it's quality differ from evidence for CO2 equivalents causing global warming? What kind of pollution are you concerned about?
Agreed with our monetary system being a driver of growth. Private ownership of resources like land and water, and private use of resources like land, water and air as a receptacle for waste is another.
Personally, I am not worried about there not being enough energy at all. I am not prepared to accept the trade-off for using the available sources, though. With factor 10 technology (reducing consumption to one fifth while doubling well-being) like Passive Houses, we would not need to life with the pitfalls of consuming "dirty" energy.
Yet, as explained before, that does not render Passive Houses sustainable, as the definition still hinges on meeting needs, and this is true for environmentally friendly technology as well.

Steve Netwriter · Mon, 10/08/2009 11:38:15

Hi Kerstin,
I threw in the bit about global warming just to explain my current point of view. Which of course may change. One thing I am not is dogmatic. I wanted to make the point that one can be a "skeptic" as the "alarmists" like to call us, while still being effectively on the same "side", although with slightly different views on solutions. I think there is this subtle difference which if I am right means we are trying to solve slightly the wrong problem, and so may come to the wrong solutions.

OK, to clarify:

I've done quite a bit of reading on "global warming". The only thing I can say with near certainty is that the debate is not over LOL.
So with that in mind, I don't expect to be able to provide definitive evidence which others would accept. I could provide a host of links, but instead (since time is short), I'll just give my general view based on what I've read.

1. The hockey stick appears to be a sham, in that the long flat line before "man-made global warming" is unlikely to reflect the true history of global temperature. The IPCC presented the top graph, while the bottom one was the one used "pre-IPCC":

My result studies on soil actually gave me this one:

For me this is the prime question. Is the current temperature rise (I hesitate to say rise, because it is currently falling!) as significant as the IPCC graph would suggest, or is it more on the natural wobble scale of the others?

2. Man-made CO2 output may be affecting the global temperature. It should. But by how much? I haven't seen any convincing evidence that it is responsible for the current "rise", or that it is theoretically possible to be responsible for future rises if CO2 levels continue to rise.

3. CO2 has been painted as a "pollutant", when in fact it is a very necessary component of our atmosphere.

I tend to follow the articles on these websites, which IMO are more reliable than others. The reason being that both have highlighted errors made in peer-reviewed papers:

Steve McIntyre - audits scientific papers and finds errors
http://www.climateaudit.org

Anthony Watts - temperature site review etc
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/

For me science is about finding the truth. I have more faith in those who I see being transparent and finding errors in other's work than those who appear to be striving to support their theories.

So, I do not know with any certainty whether man-made global warming is a significant problem. I'm pretty sure there is some, as theoretically there should be some, but I do not know how big it is. I tend to the view that it is not as a big as portrayed by the so called majority.

I do find this quite compelling:

Dr Roy Spencer on Global Warming Parts 1 to 6 - 18 February 2009
http://www.neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/1454

Dr Roy Spencer - Why the IPCC models are wrong - Part 1 & 2 <<< especially this one.
http://www.neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/1453

Dr Roy Spencer from 22nd July 2008
http://www.neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/1452

The graph I posted above is from here:

Earth Temperature over the past 18 Thousand Years - Essentials of Geology - An Introduction of Planet Earth by Stephen Marshak
http://www.neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/1468

I am concerned about pollutants that damage our environment and us. From farm run-off which damages rivers to lead and other heavy metals in the soil etc.
I also worry about damage to ecosystems caused by us. I think biodiversity is important, and we as a species have been too greedy. I would like to see us advance but with a stable if not declining population, in a truly sustainable way so that the future for my grandchildren has a good chance of being a good one.

Peak oil is another difficult one to be certain on. Again on the balance of evidence I tend to the peak oil side. Looking at the history of discovery and supply for each source, in which each country starts being a net exporter and ends up being a net importer, and the way sources have moved from cheap easy to extract towards more and more expensive sources, I think one must explain why that has been the case if peak oil is not true. Why would Canadian tar sand being a viable source if there was still plentiful supply in cheaper places?
I know one has to be careful that vested interests may be biasing the appearance, but I find it difficult to see how in this case.

Quite a bit of info in one picture:

http://www.oilposter.org/posterlarge.html

I've listen to this interview many times, and find it very compelling:

Why Your World is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller by Jeff Rubin
http://www.neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/1200

Again Chris Martenson is someone I have great respect for, and his take on it I also find compelling:

Crash Course: Chapter 17a - Peak Oil (1 of 2) by Chris Martenson
http://www.neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/158

kr · Mon, 10/08/2009 16:30:05

Al right, the hockey stick controversy. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy on that. This is just to balance your extensive usage of external links; I find it rather difficult to read 9 other websites to get an argument in a forum.

You did not actually reference the graphs, though, which would have been helpful, e.g. who was using the "pre-IPCC" graph and when, in which IPCC report was the first graph published, and are the graphs actually showing the same thing? The first is titled: temperature anomally 1960-1990 (where? worldwide?), while the second is titled: climatic changes in Europe over the past thousand years.
It is difficult to enter into a discussion without the chance to check the key evidence.

I am not a statistician or climate scientist. I just cannot come up with one single reason, as much as a scratch my head, why there should be an international conspiracy amongst scientists of many disciplines (some of which I know personally) telling us a big fat lie, all the while the guys working for or being paid by big business have become custodians of the truth. I find this extremely unlikely.

There is of course no absolute truth in predicting the future. This is what I like about the IPCC reports: they are only giving a likelihood of things to occur. In my view, this is the similarity to peak oil prognoses. We can only be sure once we are there. Let's assume, climate prognoses are all wrong, we are successful with cutting emissions nevertheless, and found out in 100 years or so: actually, this would not have been necessary/did not change a thing. What have we lost? There is quite something to loose, if there is a chance of influencing the degree of warming (as all or parts of it are man-made), and we are not taking it. Sustainability discourse is referring to a precautionary principle. In the light of the magnitude of possible damage, I find the precautionary principle fully warranted in this case. I also feel that reducing emissions has many other benefits.

But, hey, in the end this is all just a fringe discussion regarding sustainability in the built environment. As you've rightly pointed out: there are many reasons to strive for energy efficiency, and energy efficiency is only one aspect of sustainability.

Steve Netwriter · Mon, 10/08/2009 18:30:26

Al right, the hockey stick controversy. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy on that. This is just to balance your extensive usage of external links; I find it rather difficult to read 9 other websites to get an argument in a forum.

Thanks for that. I have been too busy to follow the debate for about the past year, and reading that is a good reminder of all the things I have read.
Unfortunately I have moved forums (incompatible software) and don't have easy access to the detailed report I wrote on the Senate report mentioned. I may be one of the few people in the world who have read every word of it. And very interesting it was too.
I haven't heard this before though, so my search was useful.

"Questions Surrounding the 'Hockey Stick' Temperature Studies: Implications for Climate Change Assessments"
I cannot now find an online text transcript version (which is odd), but you can listen to it here:
http://archives.energycommerce.house.go … 006_oi.ram

I do have a copy of the full hearing transcript (774kb), which I can upload to my website if you are really interested!

Edit: I found it at last!
It's here:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin … 31362.wais

I have two monitors for my work, and so can read two things at once LOL.

I am not a statistician or climate scientist. I just cannot come up with one single reason, as much as a scratch my head, why there should be an international conspiracy amongst scientists of many disciplines (some of which I know personally) telling us a big fat lie, all the while the guys working for or being paid by big business have become custodians of the truth. I find this extremely unlikely.

Who mentioned an "international conspiracy amongst scientists of many disciplines" ?
I certainly didn't, so I can offer no evidence for one.

"I just cannot come up with one single reason, as much as a scratch my head".
I can help you out on possible reasons for bias in the IPCC and the science surrounding it.
I believe more in bias and political influence than "conspiracy".

Politics

We have some concerns about the objectivity of the IPCC process, with some of its emissions scenarios and summary documentation apparently influenced by political considerations. There are significant doubts about some aspects of the IPCC's emissions scenario exercise, in particular, the high emissions scenarios. The Government should press the IPCC to change their approach. There are some positive aspects to global warming and these appear to have been played down in the IPCC reports; the Government should press the IPCC to reflect in a more balanced way the costs and benefits of climate change. The Government should press the IPCC for better estimates of the monetary costs of global warming damage and for explicit monetary comparisons between the costs of measures to control warming and their benefits. Since warming will continue, regardless of action now, due to the lengthy time lags.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergover … ate_Change

Funding Bias
You provide the evidence for this possibility:

all the while the guys working for or being paid by big business have become custodians of the truth.

I think it probable that there is bias from both ends of the spectrum. Some trying to bias for global warming, and some the opposite.
Given the apparent political drive at the moment, I would be very surprised if scientific research funding were not biased towards research into global warming contributory evidence.

The 'Green' Crusade

Global warming appears to be a very convenient method of furthering the 'green crusaders'.
I find the use of words like "skeptic" and "denier" by the "alarmists" reflect a underlying 'wanting' to believe in global warming as it enables them to push their green views.

I find the precautionary principle fully warranted in this case.

This is a very common argument. IMO it fails for a simple reason.

If we take measures to reduce CO2 emissions, and CO2 is not causing global warming, and if global warming is changing to a serious degree, then our measures will do nothing.
And while achieving nothing, we will have spent time and money acting on the wrong solution.
The result could be loss of life.

IMO we need to consider the risks of acting on the wrong cause.
It may be better to act on mitigating the results of global warming.

But, I agree with you, this is supposed to be a discussion about sustainability, which is something I do worry about.
I only mentioned global warming to try and explain that a "skeptic" is not a bad person
That "skeptics" can also be worried about the same issues, but just that they come at the problem with a slightly different perspective.

Last edited by Steve Netwriter (Mon, 10/08/2009 18:57:24)

kr · Mon, 10/08/2009 20:43:43

>Given the apparent political drive at the moment, I would be very surprised if scientific research funding were not biased
>towards research into global warming contributory evidence.

You should be surprised, then. Particularly in NZ, funding for this is minimal; NZs prime research institute in this regard, NIWA, is constantly struggling to survive (a senior NIWA scientist and IPCC panel member was recently sacked). In Germany, the other country I have familiarity with the research establishment, it is the same. Your argument of equal economic bias does not fly at all. Neither is substantiating IPCC conclusions furthering your career, nor is it putting butter on your bread. The likes of me are making a bit of money from educating people about energy efficient buildings, so I could be seen as profiting, but again: I am not a climate scientist, and I am certainly not making enough money to employ some for coming up with research that is keeping me in business, nor do I know of any industry with enough muscle, who is profiteering enough to pay scientist for skewing the facts (please do not argue with wind or solar companies; they are all either tiny on a global scale or subsidiaries of major players with an interest in oil).
The question remains: cui bono?

>We have some concerns about the objectivity of the IPCC process, with some of its emissions scenarios and
>summary documentation apparently influenced by political considerations. There are significant doubts about some
>aspects of the IPCC's emissions scenario exercise, in particular, the high emissions scenarios. The Government
>should press the IPCC to change their approach. There are some positive aspects to global warming and these appear
>to have been played down in the IPCC reports; the Government should press the IPCC to reflect in a more balanced
>way the costs and benefits of climate change. The Government should press the IPCC for better estimates of the
>monetary costs of global warming damage and for explicit monetary comparisons between the costs of measures to
>control warming and their benefits. Since warming will continue, regardless of action now, due to the lengthy time lags.

I am at a loss what quoting the House of Lords Economic Committee (2005 - some years prior to the latest IPCC report) proves? That there is no political bias? This would counter your own argument.

So, you are seeing loosing time and money as the risk of following the IPCC report? Investing in energy efficiency makes good economic sense in any case, thus I cannot see why this equates to a loss. I would not be achieving nothing, even though, following your line of thought, it might not slow down global warming. I think everyone is agreeing that we have to mitigate the effects of climate change simultaneously, as we are already quite late in the game, so this is simply a necessity for survival. I cannot discern large streams of money flowing into this, though, nor into curbing emissions. And seriously: how come that suddenly trillions of dollar were available to bale out banks and car companies, and we are to decide whether to curb emissions or mitigate effects of climate change, as there is not enough money to do both?

I am sorry, Steve, but if you do not want to be labelled a denier, please do not label others alarmists and green crusaders. What green views are to be pushed, by the way? Once the people have accepted man-made global warming, greenies can sell them tree hugging as a desert?

Steve Netwriter · Tue, 11/08/2009 09:21:59

Hi Kerstin,
I read this yesterday and think it is very appropriate:

Like the human species, everyone within it is more notable for what they have in common than what they don't, yet the smaller differences seem to get accentuated. I feel a bit like that with you and I.

Yes I listened to Dr Salinger on Radio NZ I guess back then. I assume I haven't missed anyone else.

"New Zealand is on a slippery slope when trying to provide Kiwis with a greater understanding of our climate is a sackable offence."
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/politics/5285 … -scientist

I will pass on all the things we obviously disagree on, as I think it distracts from the positive discussions we could otherwise have.

One point on words from me though. I disagree with (especially scientists) using the words "denier" and "skeptic". I feel that when people use those words they are trying to stifle proper debate, and portray the image that their argument is somehow the "true" one.
In order to counter the massive use of those words, when I encounter them I use the word "alarmist", which IMO is an equally stupid word. My aim is to expose what I think is the inappropriate use of words.

IMO science should not be debated in such a way.

"What green views are to be pushed, by the way?"

The Mugging of an Environmental Skeptic
By Jim Peron
http://www.liberalvalues.org.nz/index.p … cle_id=103

In any sect the worst sinner is the heretic: the one who once knew the "truth" but now has rejected it. Bjørn Lomborg is such a man. By his own admission he is a man of the political left. He refuses to eat meat because of his views regarding animals. He was formerly a member of Greenpeace. Just 36 years old, Lomborg is a professor of statistics, he's Danish, attractive, and gay. He could almost be a poster boy for political correctness - if it weren't for his damnable book: The Skeptical Environmentalist.

Lomborg's decent into Green apostacy began in February 1997 while in Los Angeles. There he picked up a copy of Wired magazine and read an interview with the free market economist Julian Simon. In it Simon outlined his reasons for why the Green Left was wrong on virtually all the major issues. Lomborg was shocked that anyone disputed the common wisdom.

When he returned to the University of Aarhus he organized a project for the students in his statistics course. They would analyze the claims of Simon, compare his claims against the available data and prove him wrong. As he now admits he set out to debunk Simon and got debunked himself instead. The evidence did not support the doomsday theories of the Green movement and Lomborg made his biggest mistake by writing a book on what he discovered.

His biases were pro-Green and his training in statistics made him a good candidate for evaluating the data and comparing it to the theories. But now the Green movement, almost in mass, has turned their ire on this affable Dane. At Oxford he was attacked by a Green activist who hit him in the face with a pie. The attacker said he did it in "solidarity" with Third World people suffering under the ravages of climatic change created by greedy corporations. Others may have a slightly different view since the "activist" used the attack to promote his own book. Within a few hours of the attack his details, his publishers details, and information on how the media could obtain photos and videos of the attack were posted on a Green web page

Anti-capitalist views for one.
That does not necessarily mean I disagree with some of their views/hopes.

"And seriously: how come that suddenly trillions of dollar were available to bale out banks and car companies, and we are to decide whether to curb emissions or mitigate effects of climate change, as there is not enough money to do both?"

Ahh, well there we get into some really complex financial stuff. Some believe that "The Money Masters" have great control and done much harm. If true, I can VERY much appreciate any anger towards them. If that is the source of the anti-capitalist campaigns, then I can understand the motivation, although think their PR is very poor.

"So, you are seeing loosing time and money as the risk of following the IPCC report? Investing in energy efficiency makes good economic sense in any case, thus I cannot see why this equates to a loss. I would not be achieving nothing, even though, following your line of thought, it might not slow down global warming. I think everyone is agreeing that we have to mitigate the effects of climate change simultaneously, as we are already quite late in the game, so this is simply a necessity for survival."

OK, now I think this is the point we should be discussing. I really didn't want to get into global warming. As I said, I simply tried to explain the subtle difference between my tendency to think CO2 emissions are not a serious problem, but how I can still have many of the same views as those who do.
ie if you think CO2 emissions are a problem, and I do not, then I think we can still agree on many things.

I see the IPCC route as wanting to attack the problem of CO2 emissions.
I see the problem as an ever increasing cost and decreasing availability of energy resources.

We would both agree on energy efficiency. Yay
You will be happy at lower CO2 emissions, and I would happy at lower rate of energy resource consumption.

You see, we can agree

I think we can also agree that it's no good if some countries become more energy efficient while other grow and use more. Yay, more agreement

Now, where I think we will disagree is over some of the detail.
For example, you may suggest that reducing emissions of CO2 from say farms is a good idea. I would see that as unimportant.
You would see growing trees to soak up CO2 as good. I have no problem with more tress, I like trees, but I see burning wood as an energy resource, so see no problem with a sustainable tree growing and cutting down process.

I hear about the dangers to low lying island nations. "We must cut CO2 emissions". If CO2 is not a problem causing sea level rise, but natural changes are causing rising temperatures (eg water vapour, the Sun etc), then attacking CO2 will not help, while planning something to cope with sea level rises would.

I hope we can agree to disagree on some things and have a constructive discussion in areas where that is possible.

NZ Passive House Forum

#1 Wed, 01/04/2009 16:46:22

Sustainability in the context of the built environment

#2 Sun, 09/08/2009 18:32:47

Re: Sustainability in the context of the built environment

#3 Sun, 09/08/2009 21:37:06

Re: Sustainability in the context of the built environment

#4 Mon, 10/08/2009 11:38:15

Re: Sustainability in the context of the built environment

#5 Mon, 10/08/2009 16:30:05

Re: Sustainability in the context of the built environment

#6 Mon, 10/08/2009 18:30:26

Re: Sustainability in the context of the built environment

#7 Mon, 10/08/2009 20:43:43

Re: Sustainability in the context of the built environment

#8 Tue, 11/08/2009 09:21:59

Re: Sustainability in the context of the built environment

Board footer