Green ArchiTEXT

Nature imposes the real bottom line

From the David Suzuki Foundation:

We often describe the triple bottom line - society, economy, and environment - as three intersecting circles of equal size. This is nonsense. The reality is that the largest circle should represent the biosphere. Within that, we have 30 million species, including us, that depend on it. Within the biosphere circle should be a much smaller circle, which is human society, and within that should be an even smaller circle, the economy. Neither of the inner circles should grow large enough to intersect with the bigger ones, but that's what's happening now as human societies and the economy hit their limits.

We also draw lines around property, cities, provinces, and countries. We take these so seriously that we are willing to fight and die to protect those borders. But nature pays no attention to human boundaries. Air, water, soil that blows across continents and oceans, migrating fish, birds and mammals, and windblown seeds cannot be managed within human strictures, yet all the discussions in Copenhagen were centred on countries that, in turn, were divided into rich and poor. In science-fiction movies where an alien from outer space attacks and kills humans, national differences disappear as we join forces to fight a common enemy. That is what we have to tap into to meet the climate crisis.

Nature is our home. Nature provides our most fundamental needs. Nature dictates limits. If we are striving for a truly sustainable future, we have to subordinate our activities to the limits that come from nature. We know how much carbon dioxide can be reabsorbed by all the green things in the oceans and on land, and we know we are exceeding those limits. That's why carbon is building up in the atmosphere. So our goal is clear. All of humanity must find a way to keep emissions below the limits imposed by the biosphere.

via beta.davidsuzuki.org

Putting a Value on Bees, Trees and the Rest of Nature

By Tom McKeag

"Money doesn't grow on trees," our parents told us, and they were right. Trees, however, are essential for making money, and not just because of the paper they provide. More and more, companies are recognizing that the forest, as well as the tree, is essential to everyone's prosperity. After all, we live in a society with a nature-based economy, and the resources that nature provides could not exist without healthy ecosystems.

Resource economists typically depict nature as doing four general favors for us: providing things like food and water; regulating things like floods and droughts; supporting life through basic processes like photosynthesis, soil formation and material cycling; and enhancing cultural things like spiritual refreshment and scientific discovery. Valuing these services is complicated and is done by several methods, like calculating replacement value, or willingness to pay. As resources get scarcer, valuation of these services will become more and more a part of every business.

via www.greenbiz.com

The New Green Economy: What Does a Sustainable Economy Look Like?

From the “New Green Economy” conference, held recently in Washington, D.C. In the session “Growing the Green Economy or Greening the Grown Economy?” Robert Costanza, Director, Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont, moderated a panel including Mindy Lubber, President, CERES, Van Jones, author of “The Green Collar Economy,” Tim Jackson, Economics Commissioner, UK Sustainable Development Commission, and David Orr, Professor of Environmental Studies, Oberlin College.

What does a sustainable economy look like?

Orr: “It won’t look like what we’ve done in the past. Bill McKibben is coming out with a new book in April called “Eaarth” because he says humans have actually changed the climate to such an extent that it’s literally a different planet. The U.S. is now a debtor nation $10 trillion in debt. We are in a radically changed world. On the positive side, we now have green buildings; solar-powered buildings are proven to be doable. There’s biomimicry, which can lead to innovations in products. We have theoretical basis for a green economy. We’ve had a revolution in design capabilities. There can be growth in more honest ways now.

via dirt.asla.org

Towards a Greener Manufacturing

An interesting post in yesterday’s Environmental Leader on ‘sustainable production’ by David Dornfeld who leads the Laboratory for Manufacturing and Sustainability (LMAS) at the University of California, Berkeley. In “Green Manufacturing: The Next Great Leap Forward”, he reviews the evolution of manufacturing through ‘flexible production’ in the 1980s to ‘lean manufacturing’ and ‘mass personalization’ of the last few decades and asks how can improved processes lead to greener manufacturing. What bigger impact on the built environment could there be than a system of manufacturing that fully addresses the environmental and social costs associated with the lifecycle as well.

Dornfeld writes:

“What is the next big change? I believe it will be a move to account for the “embedded costs” associated with energy, carbon footprint, re-use and re-manufacturing leading closer to sustainable production. But, how will this be accomplished?”

Read his full essay here.

Habitats, Biodiversity & Ecosystems As Valued Assets

What is the true value, a full accounting, of ecosystem services within world markets? Is it possible to actually trade the broad array of systems that are essential for life – soil, water, carbon – while influencing political decisions, even consumer preferences?

Those are the fundamental questions posed by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) in its latest newsletter. “Natural Assets: Conservation Instruments or Instruments for Change?”, begins:

“Nobody is surprised when their water is cut off if they haven’t paid the bill. We admit that companies have to recoup their investments and maintain infrastructure (water withdrawal, treatment, distribution, etc.), on top of paying staff and suppliers.

Why don’t we apply the same logic to the services offered by nature? The answer is simple: they are perceived to be free. Year after year, plant roots have acted as enormous filter systems and, in spite of not getting compensated, they have not stopped filtering.”

“Natural Assets” cites several emerging examples: the European Union’s Water Framework Directive and the Environmental Liability Directive, which includes complementary measures to compensate for the damage caused at different sites. In addition, the EC Habitats Directive and the Biodiversity Strategy embrace the principle of no net loss, setting the target of zero biodiversity loss by 2010. In Spain, the Ministry of Environment’s WATER program has created water banks. And “Natura 2000”, Europe’s network of protected natural areas, obliges Spanish businesses to act in the fight against biodiversity loss.

The central idea, according to Fundación Entorno - BCSD Spain:

“The introduction of ecosystem services that are essential for life (soil fixation, nutrient cycles, carbon absorption, climate regulation, water supply, along with aesthetic, cultural and spiritual values) into market considerations would help to create a school of thought that is sensitive to conservation interests.

By doing so, new trading opportunities would emerge that build on the experience of carbon markets. Buyers and sellers would exchange environmental services with a net result that does not imply the loss of natural assets.”

Read the full text of “Natural Assets: Conservation Instruments or Instruments for Change?” here.